Tag: toronto

• Why Toronto should stop complaining about all its condos

  Below is my latest post from the TAS blog. You can find it cross-posted here.

  Last week I wrote a post on my personal blog about housing policy in San Francisco. My argument was that the backlash against the tech community (for allegedly driving up real estate prices) is actually misdirected and that housing policy should be the target. 

  The reasoning behind this is simple: More people are moving to San Francisco than new housing is being provided. And so regardless of whether you have tech workers or not, you have an environment where the rich are always going to outbid the poor for housing.

  If you look at the numbers from the past 2 decades, San Francisco on average builds 1,500 new housing units a year. And yet the city gained approximately 25,000 new people between 2010-2012 (that’s roughly 8,300 people per year). So what you have is a perpetual housing supply shortage.

  To correct this problem, San Francisco needs to start building. And I’m stealing this idea from Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, who wrote an article on this very same topic back in December of last year for Bloomberg (and a book called Triumph of the City). His argument was that “the surest way to a more equitable housing market is to reduce the barriers to building.”

  Now, if you compare San Francisco’s situation to Toronto’s, we’re almost on the opposite end of the spectrum. Toronto doesn’t have a problem building. We’re building lots. So much so that it’s become fashionable to joke around and complain about all the condos going up in this city.

  But it’s important to remember that all of these condos are making us a relatively affordable city by global standards. We have more people moving to this city every year than San Francisco and yet home prices are less. We’re also less expensive than Vancouver, where there are strong natural barriers to building, namely water and mountains.

  So rather than complain, I’m going to be the contrarian. I like seeing new housing built. I like knowing that the neighborhoods I love in this city are becoming home to more and more people.

  At one point, my home (which is in the St. Lawrence Market) was a “new development” and somebody could have fought and opposed it. But it was allowed to be built and I was allowed to move in. I’m thankful for that. And so my plan is to be just as gracious to the next person who wants to join the neighborhood.

  2014.01.31

• Those evil bikes

  

  I just stumbled upon an interesting piece in the Boston Globe (from last December) talking about how the bicycle is “emerging as a new conservative front in the culture wars.”

  It starts by talking about Toronto mayor Rob Ford and asks: Who elected this guy? Their response comes down to mode of transport.

  The answer, in large part, comes down to transit. Ford is famously pro-car, and his strongest support came from suburbs outside downtown Toronto, where voters drive into the city during the day and return by car in the evening. One political scientist found that the strongest predictor of whether someone voted for Ford in the 2010 mayoral election was the person’s method of commuting: Car commuters were Ford voters; everyone else wasn’t. Ford repaid their loyalty by declaring on his first day as mayor that the “war on cars” was over; he abolished the vehicle registration tax and announced a plan to kill light rail in the city simply because, he said, streetcars “are just a pain in the rear end.”

  The article then goes on to argue that Ford is at the forefront of a growing conservative movement using bikes as a new political lightning rod. Conservative politicians view cyclists as urbanites (statistically this is true) and therefore not part of their core voter base (statistically this is also true). And so hating on bikes has become a convenient way for them to galvanize their support base.

  But beyond bikes, we’re really talking about a bigger city building issue: How do you unify a city with such divergent priorities? How do we stop this downtown versus the suburbs mentality? These are important questions and I don’t think the answer is to de-amalgamate Toronto. That’s the easy way out.

  Whether we like it or not, the Toronto region functions as one contiguous economic unit and, if we want to be able to effectively compete on the global stage, we’re going to need cohesion. We need to get our house in order. It’s still early days for Toronto’s 2014 mayoral election, but I really hope the next 4 years turn out to be better than the last. I think they will.

  2014.01.29

• Keeping our momentum

  This morning Kevin Marshall tweeted me a link to a blog post by Andy Weissman (partner at Union Square Ventures in New York). The post is about how small things matter—even small words.

  He starts by talking about a new sidewalk extension and curb cut at 86th Street and 3rd Avenue in Manhattan. This may seem like a pretty banal thing to talk about, but it’s in support of his argument that small things—like even a curb cut—can be used to solve bigger problems. In this case, the intersection was a dangerous one because of poor pedestrian visibility.

  But what I really like is how he describes the pulse of New York:

  “The rhythm of NYC is such that we need to keep moving and in motion; as a result, waiting to cross a street by standing at the curb is not enough, we must walk into the street to get going or keep our momentum.”

  This is great and it’s bang on. People in New York don’t stand at the curb waiting for the light to change. They impatiently push onto the street and wait for the first opportunity to cross. This may seem like a small tendency, but I think it speaks volumes about the character of New York.

  People in Toronto generally don’t do this.

  They (not me) wait patiently at the street corner even if there aren’t any cars coming. Why? Think about this the next time you’re standing on guard at the crosswalk. Don’t lose the momentum. The world rewards those who poke the box and keep moving.

  2014.01.27

• Housing policy in San Francisco

  The tech community has been receiving a lot of backslash in San Francisco as of late. And Peter Shih’s infamous 10 things I hate about San Francisco post certainly didn’t help. But I think there’s a bigger issue than just rich tech people driving up the price of real estate.

  I was reading Quartz this morning and I think they nailed it: 

  “But the blame shouldn’t go to the tech companies or their employees moving to San Francisco, however despicable some might be. Blame San Francisco for being pleasant, and its policymakers for being foolish: When a lot of people are moving to your city—San Francisco the city gained 50,000 new residents between 2000 and 2012, including some 25,000 between 2010-2012 and likely more since—home prices are going to increase unless you build a lot more housing.”

  I’ve talked about this idea before. But I wanted to break it down a bit more precisely.

  If San Francisco, the city, gained 25,000 people between 2010-2012, let’s say that the city gained roughly 8,300 people per year. I just divided by 3. However, if you look at the rate of new housing supply, you get a 10-year average of 2,350 housing units a year (from the Quartz article) and an even lower amount according to Atlantic Cities.

  Regardless, what you end up with is a pretty simple phenomenon: More people are moving to the city than new housing is being provided and that’s driving up the price of real estate. In fact, San Francisco allegedly only created 269 housing units in 2011! That’s the equivalent of only one fairly typical Toronto condo building going up (and we have hundreds under construction). No wonder there’s upward pressure on prices.

  So rather than just blame the tech community for the city’s housing problems, I think there needs to be a broader look at housing policy. If you really want to help affordability, here’s one simple solution: start building.

  2014.01.25

• Poke the box, dammit

  Last night before bed I decided to buy a book on my Kindle (iPad app) that I’ve been meaning to read for awhile. It’s called Poke the Box and it’s by Seth Godin. It’s a short read and it’s meant to be that way. You could easily read it in one sitting.

  The book is about taking initiative. Taking action. And drawing your own map. It’s about not being scared of failure and realizing that failures are how you learn. It’s about poking the box, which is a computer programming reference. Programmers learn by poking the box (computer) and seeing what works and what doesn’t work.

  As I read through the book I’m reminded of something that venture capitalist Ben Horowitz wrote a few months ago on his blog:

  “Every employee in a company depends on the CEO to make fast, high quality decisions. Often any decision, even the wrong decision, is better than no decision.”

  Both Godin and Horowitz are, in a way, talking about the same thing: You have to keep moving. Make decisions. Start stuff. And stop worrying so much about being wrong, because it’s virtually impossible to know how things will eventually play out in the future.

  A perfect example of this is Starbucks.

  The first Starbucks in Seattle didn’t sell brewed coffee. It sold beans. And had it continued along this path, it certainly wouldn’t have become the brand that it is today. In fact, it may have failed completely. It wasn’t until Howard Schultz saw what they had started and combined it with what he had learned in Italy, that the Starbucks experience of today was born.

  The important thing is that somebody (Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl and Gordon Bowker) took the initiative to start and build a Starbucks. It didn’t matter that they got the recipe wrong, they poked the box and it ultimately lead to something magical.

  The same reluctance to poke the box can also be found in city building.

  Here in Toronto we spend a significant amount of time debating and vacillating around transit decisions (as well as many other things). Should we build LRT? Or should we build subway? What should we replace the Scarborough Rapid Transit line with?

  But we’ve fallen into analysis paralysis.

  The original Transit City Plan was announced on March 16th, 2007. It’s now 2014. And transit still sucks. Imagine if we started and finished, say, 2 kilometers of rapid transit each and every year. Forget worrying if it’s LRT, subway or a horse drawn space ship. We just kept moving.

  Something tells me that we’d be better off, even if we did make a few mistakes along the way.

  2014.01.23

• Design your own beautiful maps

  If you love cities, then I’m willing to bet you probably also love maps.

  I just stumbled across a neat tool called Map Stack. It was created by San Francisco-based Stamen Design—probably one of the leaders in beautiful maps. The tool is one part Photoshop and one part Mapbox, and it allows you to quickly create an endless array of cool looking maps. Like these:

  

  I spent 2 minutes and made a watercolor version of Toronto’s financial district:

  

  This tool aside, I also really like Mapbox. When we were designing and building Dirt, we ended up using them for our map underlay because we wanted something beautiful and we didn’t love Google Maps for that reason. Though we missed Google Streetview, we were happy with the decision. Other apps using Mapbox include Foursquare and Pinterest.

  2014.01.21

• How Bloomberg transformed the streets of New York

  Here’s a great video by Streetfilms that shows the incredible transformation of New York’s public realm during the Bloomberg administration. I found it via The Urbanophile blog. It’s about 5 minutes long.

  Video Description: “There’s nothing more dramatic than looking back five or ten years at Streetfilms footage to see how much the streets of New York City have changed. In this wonderful montage, check out the incredible changes at Times Square, Herald Square, the Brooklyn waterfront, and many other places that outgoing NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and her staff have intrepidly transformed.”

  It just goes to show what can be accomplished with the right leader and political will. I wish we (Toronto) had a mayor who understood the value of beautiful public spaces and bike lanes. It’s unfortunate that these things often become attached to political orientation. This shouldn’t be the case. It’s just good city building.

  2014.01.16

• Transit vehicle capacities compared

  I was cruising the twitter sphere yesterday when I came across the following chart, outlining the various transit vehicle capacities here in Toronto. It was created by Cameron MacLeod of #CodeRedTO, which is a grassroots group advocating for “a rational, affordable, and achievable rapid transit strategy for Toronto.”

  

  On the left you have the vehicle type and then you have the capacity in terms of number of seats and standing room. The planned capacity is essentially the sum of those two numbers and the “unsafe crush load” is the number of people you could fit if you really put your back into it.

  Articulated buses refer to the longer (1.5x) bendy ones and, similarly, ALRV streetcars are the longer, articulated version of our regular streetcars. The low-floor streetcar is similar to what Toronto will be getting. And SRT is the Scarborough Rapid Transit system.

  The chart also compares between vehicle types: How many cars would you need to move the same number of people? How many buses? And so on. As one example, you would need 15.9 buses or 982 cars to move the same number of people as the Yonge subway line!

  What’s missing from the above chart though is light rail transit (LRT), which is comparable to the linking of up to 3 low-floor streetcars. In the case of the under construction Eglinton Crosstown LRT line, the planned capacity is 750 people!

  This is an hugely important takeaway because many people, including our own Mayor, do not properly distinguish between streetcar and light rail. The two are not one and the same. LRT has the potential to move a lot more people.

  In fact, at 750 people, the Eglinton Crosstown could move more people than the Sheppard subway line, which is only operating on 4 cars (as compared to 6 on our other subway lines).

  So while it’s all fine and dandy to bang our fists on the table and advocate for subways, they don’t make economic sense in all parts of our city. With the Sheppard line, we’ve been leaving capacity on the table and wasting taxpayer money.

  Of course this chart is also useful for those outside of Toronto. What I like about it is that it clearly shows the tool chest available to cities when it comes to building transit. Every city and neighborhood is different. And I think it’s important to have intelligent conversations about what makes sense in each.

  Thank you to Cameron and #CodeRedTO for allowing me to post their work.

  2014.01.09

• Road pricing chicken and egg

  Regular readers of this blog will know that I’m a big supporter of road pricing. I think it’s an incredibly efficient way of reducing congestion, improving regional productivity, making us more sustainable, and funding other infrastructure, like transit.

  But one of the arguments I often hear against road pricing is that it’s unfair to force a segment of the market out of their car if there’s no good alternative (ie. proper transit). And even if the revenue produced from road pricing goes towards transit, we all know that new infrastructure takes a very, long, time.

  So we end up with a chicken and egg problem: Road pricing is a great way to fund transit, but it’s difficult to implement without the proper transit in place. So what should we do? What comes next?

  I have two thoughts.

  First, road pricing doesn’t necessarily mean that you can no longer drive without paying. Effective road pricing matches price with demand. Therefore if there’s nobody else on the road, you wouldn’t be paying (or at least wouldn’t be paying much). This is what makes it efficient—it adjusts. So for somebody without the willingness to pay for peak congestion pricing, they could still have the option of driving at another time. Go in early or go in later.

  But what it does mean is that no matter what time you’re driving, the road could be priced so that it actually functions again. In Toronto today, many of our roads are completely failing. Demand greatly exceeds available supply (the amount of road we have) and so you can’t use them to get anywhere in an efficient way. So what we have is equal access to terrible non-functioning roads.

  Second, there’s no such thing as a free lunch and nobody said it was going to be easy to build phenomenal infrastructure. We all complain and say we want it, but when push comes to shove, are you willing to open up your wallet and pay for it?

  So I say forget pontificating about chickens and eggs and just do it. If we priced roads and setup other appropriate revenue tools, I’m sure there are some financial wizards in this city that could use tax increment financing or other mechanisms to ensure that we get shovels in the ground today for the new infrastructure that we so desperately need.

  These are important discussions to be having no matter what city you live in. I would love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below or on twitter.

  2014.01.08

• SKATE city videos

  Two weeks ago I wrote a post called “Skateboarding and the city.” If you liked that post, I recommend you take a look at this 5 minute video called SKATE Toronto. It’s part of a series where local skateboarders provide a guided tour of their city.

  [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEb4QvJzFVU&w=560&h=315]

  You’ll find similar videos for New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia, Hong Kong, etc. What I like about them (other than the skating, of course) is that they clearly demonstrate the unique way in which skateboarders examine and engage with cities.

  2014.01.04