Tag: toronto

• Out of sight, out of mind

  Henry Grabar has an interesting piece in the March 2016 issue of The Atlantic talking about Paris’s ambitious metro expansion. By 2030, and after $25 billion of investment, the Paris system will gain four new lines, 68 stations, and more than 120 miles (192 kilometers) of track. 

  To put this into perspective, this additional track length is roughly equal to Toronto’s entire subway and streetcar network, including all under construction and approved lines.

  But the real focus of Grabar’s article was on how this transit investment will really stitch Paris back together:

  “Three of the new lines will run north and east of Paris, through Seine-Saint-Denis, the poorest of the 96 departments in France. Among French cities with at least 50,000 people, six of the seven with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents are in Seine-Saint-Denis. Residents of Clichy-sous-Bois, where the riots that swept the region in 2005 began, will for the first time find central Paris within a 45-minute train ride. The town of Saint-Denis, the site of the standoff between police and the terrorists who struck Paris in November, will be home to the project’s largest train station. Designed by the Japanese architect Kengo Kuma, the junction is expected to handle 250,000 passengers a day.”

  Below is a map (from the same article) showing the location of Clichy-sous-Bois to the east of Paris and the area reachable within 45 minutes from this suburb, both today and in 2030 when the new metro lines open.

  

  Having traveled to Paris in 2006, shortly after the riots took place, I remember some Parisians telling me that this was not a Paris problem. They told me that this was a problem of the banlieues, but not of Paris. Seeing how separate Clichy-sous-Bois is today, that is probably how it felt to some or most. But based on the above, the Paris region is about to be stitched together.

  What I love about Grabar’s article is this idea that transit and connectivity represent a kind of citizenship for urban residents. And that even today, in our hyper connected world, physical access matters a great deal. Because without it, you might be out of sight, out of mind.

  On that note, here is how the article ends:

  Benoît Quessard, an urban planner for the local government, told me that he sees the expansion as not merely “an economic wager but also a social one.” In this sense, it will test an old Parisian belief about the Métro conferring, beyond convenience, a kind of citizenship on its riders. In 1904, four years after the first line opened, the writer Jules Romains predicted that the system would be a “living, fluid cement that will succeed in holding men together.”

  2016.02.13

• My approach to blogging

  In yesterday’s post about the city as an egg, I received a comment basically saying that I use this blog to carefully curate my own image and that I would never argue against “dumb Toronto planning” because, after all, I’m a developer. I am going to do what breads my own butter.

  I welcome intelligent debate on this blog. That’s why it is open to anyone who would like to comment. But since I’ve received similar comments in the past, I thought I would use the opportunity to talk broadly about my approach to blogging.

  Firstly, there will always be some level of curation involved. That’s inevitable. We see it all over social media. But I’m a big believer in transparency and I try to do exactly that on this blog. I am keen to push the boundaries in this regard.

  At the same time, part of what makes blogs unique is that they’re often personal. That is the origin of blogging. Some of my favorite blogs to read are the ones that have figured out how to combine a particular niche topic with personal stories. And since ATC is ultimately my personal blog, I am going to continue taking that exact same approach.

  Secondly, I only write about things that I’m passionate about. I get asked all the time to write about and promote specific projects, causes, and events. But almost all of them do not get written about it. Because if I don’t care about it, then I’m not going to write about. It’s as simple as that.

  Thirdly, I believe in positivity over negativity. I believe that optimists, not pessimists, change the world. President Obama won his first term with a message of hope, not despair. To me, that is a stronger motivator.

  I’ve been told before that I’m overly optimistic and that my youthful exuberance will one day wear off. Boy, I sure hope it doesn’t. Because would you rather have a beer with someone who is optimistic or someone who is pessimistic? I will always take the former.

  However, this is not to say that I want to be blind to the realities of the world. Last summer I disagreed with Toronto’s decision to rebuild the elevated Gardiner Expressway East along the waterfront, and I continue to disagree with that decision. 

  When I believe something is a mistake, I am happy to make it public and put it in writing on this blog. But as a developer, I suppose I have certain biases working against me. That’s just the way it is.

  In any event, this is my rough and ever-evolving approach to blogging. As usual, I welcome any and all comments.

  2016.02.12

• Rethinking the backyard from Seattle to Toronto

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  The Urbanist recently published a guest post, called Let Us Build Backyard Cottages, that sounds a lot like a post I wrote a few years ago, called Why It’s Next to Impossible to Get a Laneway House Built in Toronto.

  It’s the same story: buy house; see opportunity to build low-cost well-designed backyard cottage (or laneway house); discover the countless obstacles in front of you; give up until the land use policies become more favorable.

  Here’s the Seattle version of the story (via The Urbanist):

  I bought my home in 2014 with the intent of building a backyard cottage on the property. The property is a mere 4,080 square feet, with a large flat backyard that is mostly wasted space. The plan was to buy a small, prefabricated, and super-insulated (to Passive House standards) house. We would install it and move into it while we brought the main house up to Passive House standards as well, adding insulation and ventilation. We would then move into the main house while my parents (who are currently living on the East Coast, and want to move closer to us) move into the backyard cottage.
  

  Unfortunately, Seattle’s backyard cottage requirements proved too onerous for us to move forward with building one. The requirement of an additional parking space was a bit irritating (especially considering that my family lives car-free near the future Roosevelt light rail station), despite the fact that we do technically have two parking spaces. But more frustrating than that, it was the owner-occupancy requirement that made us scrap our backyard cottage plans.

  What I find interesting about all of this is that the same narrative is happening in multiple cities, from Seattle to Toronto. That, again, suggests to me that change is likely inevitable. Especially since Seattle seems further ahead in this regard compared to Toronto. Change is happening.

  Of course, there are differences between accessory dwelling units (what The Urbanist wrote about) and independent laneway housing (what I wrote about). But I would classify them as being in the same family of urban change.

  Most North American cities are clinging to a specific kind of single family housing typology. I can appreciate why. But I believe that there will be a tipping point.

  I’m not sure that this year will be the year. Which is why I didn’t include laneway housing in my list of 10 city building predictions for 2016. But I think it will happen in the shorter term.

  2016.02.03

• 10 city building predictions for 2016

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  Few things are better than waking up in the mountains and seeing a notification on your phone that 9″ of fresh snow have fallen overnight, bringing the 48 hour snowfall total to 16″.

  This is what people in mountain towns live for. They ski in the morning and then head to work in the afternoon. I heard a number of people on the mountain today saying that they, “want to be in the office after lunch.” It’s a lifestyle thing.

  On that note, today I’d like to focus on 10 city building predictions for 2016. I’ve been assembling this list over the past few weeks and now that I have had my fill of Utah powder for the day, I’m dedicating the rest of the afternoon to writing.

  These are never easy to put together. But here are my thoughts:

  1. We will see increased migration to secondary cities – outside of the alpha global cities – which offer a higher quality of life, more affordable housing, and the ability to live a particular lifestyle. This includes cities like Austin (creative startup hub) and Denver (outdoor recreation).
  2. As more and more cities wake up to the importance of lifestyle in attracting top talent, I think we will see a lot of cities follow the lead of Amsterdam and create “night mayors” or some other equivalent. These cities will begin to see nightlife as a competitive urban advantage.
  3. Global cities will start experimenting with different land use and property tax reform strategies to try and deal with rising income inequality and eroding housing affordability.
  4. We will see a barbell of residential unit sizes. We’ll see more well-designed small units as a way to try and promote housing affordability and we’ll see larger urban infill units for families and baby boomers who want to live/remain in walkable urban communities.
  5. In line with above, I think we will see a further rethinking of urban spaces. Flexible spaces, unique program mixes, and a continued blurring of public/private spaces. One example of this is the trend towards small private spaces surrounded by generous public/communal spaces.
  6. The Toronto and Vancouver real estate markets will continue to chug along because of low interest rates, a weak Canadian dollar, and increased foreign investment. That said, I think we will see more restraint when it comes to over-the-top luxury product.
  7. We will finally see a disruptive technology product that starts to get people in the real estate industry thinking that change is on the way. This will not be a product that ports an offline experience online; it will a new way of thinking about the industry.
  8. This will be the year that cities stop fighting Uber (and other similar marketplaces). Cities (and lobbyists) will finally accept that this is a new reality and then work to figure out the best way to create policy around it. Edmonton, Alberta has already become the first Canadian city to regulate Uber.
  9. Road pricing will get the attention it deserves in North America. Things will start out slow, but we will finally get ourselves on a path which recognizes that we can’t build our way out of traffic congestion in most major cities.
  10. I will publish a book on becoming a real estate developer.

  Many city building trends and shifts seem to happen in a global way. But I think it’s worth noting that a lot of these predictions were likely written with my North American lens on, and in some cases my Toronto lens on.

  It’s not easy sitting down and thinking about what will happen in the future. But it’s a worthwhile exercise. It forces you to take a stance and then, when the future does come, you can see how well you did. I saw Fred Wilson do this on his blog and I thought it was a great idea.

  Now I would love to hear what you think about my predictions and what yours are for this year. Please let us know in the comment section below.

  2016.02.01

• Amsterdam is about to host the first Night Mayor Summit

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  What is a night mayor, you might ask?

  Well, just as the name suggests, a night mayor is the chief executive officer of a city’s nighttime activity. And in 2014, Amsterdam became the first city ever to have one.

  Why is this important, you might ask?

  Well, for most cities the night is a blindspot. It’s viewed as something that needs to be carefully controlled as opposed to something that is celebrated and leveraged. Amsterdam saw this opportunity and, in my opinion, is now at the forefront of rethinking the night.

  Here’s an example of the kind of changes that this has meant for the city (via CityLab):

  “Until recently, Amsterdam enforced what by continental European standards is a fairly strict curfew: nightclubs had to close by 4 a.m. on weekdays and 5 a.m. on weekends. The city often had problems with noise and disorder at the exact moment when all the clubs closed, filling narrow inner city streets with rowdy people.

  To solve this problem, the night mayor suggested not less, but more time for people to go clubbing. He has helped push through the granting of 10 24-hour licenses for nightclubs. Crucially, all of them were located not in the dense city center but in thinly populated districts around Amsterdam’s outer ring road. The result was a marked reduction in street noise.”

  Some of you are probably feeling skeptical as you read this. Especially since 4AM and 5AM hardly seem strict when compared to other cities (Toronto’s last call is at 2AM). 

  But I would not underestimate the importance of what Amsterdam is doing. We are living in an era of the 24-hour global city and it’s about time that governments woke up to that. I’m sorry Toronto, but 2AM is an absolute joke.

  The night can be your competitive advantage in attracting human capital. As the CityLab article cited above suggests, a big part of what transformed Berlin into a capital of cool was its nightlife. 

  I wholeheartedly believe that and I have no doubt that the night will start to become a greater focus in city building.

  If you’d like to learn more about the Night Mayor Summit, click here.

  2016.01.30

• Top 20 cities for venture capital investment

  The Martin Prosperity Institute here in Toronto recently published a new report that looks at worldwide venture capital investment by city. The report is called Rise of the Global Startup City.

  The data is from 2012, because that’s what was available from Thomson Reuters, so keep in mind that there might be some variation in the rankings if we were to look at more recent data. Some of the cities sit fairly close.

  Nonetheless, here are a few of the broader takeaways (from the report page):

  “The United States accounts for nearly 70 percent (68.6 percent) of total global venture capital, followed by Asia (14.4 percent) and Europe (13.5 percent).”

  “Just two broad regions — the San Francisco Bay Area and the Boston-New York-Washington Corridor — account for more than 40 percent of global venture investment.”

  “Global venture investment is highly uneven and spiky — it is concentrated in a small number of large cities and metros around the world.”

  Here are the top 20 cities by total venture capital investment (in USD millions):

  

  And here are the top 20 cities according to venture capital investment per capita:

  

  Given the variation in these two lists, you realize that some cities are largely benefitting from sheer size. London, for example, drops off the list when you look at venture capital investment per capita. 

  In fact, in this second list, 19 of the 20 cities are in the United States. The only non-American city that remains is Toronto.

  2016.01.28

• Hybrid 1-2-3

  For those of you who have been reading this blog since last summer, you’ll know that I’m particularly passionate about the Gardiner Expressway East here in Toronto.

  Last night a public meeting was held to discuss the 3 alternative designs for what has become known as the “hybrid” option. If you’d like a visual summary of the options, click here.

  But essentially as you go from hybrid 1 to hybrid 3, the elevated Gardiner Expressway just gets pushed further north, away from the water. So as you go from 1 to 3, the hybrid option becomes less offensive to the waterfront and its associated public realm, and it opens up more land for development. However, it also becomes more expensive.

  Here’s a graphical summary of the costs, which my friend Gil Meslin tweeted out last night:

  Evolution of the #GardinerEast options, and their associated costs, in one graphic. #topoli #urbto pic.twitter.com/s8W36UrqtR

  — Gil Meslin (@g_meslin) January 20, 2016

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Notice that the boulevard (remove) option, which City Council rejected last summer, remains by far the most cost effective option. At a time when the city is searching for cash, I am surprised that nobody is looking here.

  I am also surprised to read that some are commenting on which of the above hybrid options will be the easiest to tear down should we want to remove the Gardiner East in the future. If that’s the lens we are applying, why rebuild it in the first place?

  But enough from me. What do you think? Here’s a Twitter poll I created this morning:

  What would you like to see happen with the elevated #GardinerEast on Toronto’s waterfront? https://t.co/33XgNY4J33

  — Brandon G. Donnelly (@donnelly_b) January 20, 2016

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  2016.01.20

• What is an urbanist?

  Cities are in vogue. And that has brought about buzzwords like urbanism, tactical urbanism, urbanist, and the list goes. But what exactly does it mean to be an urbanist?

  If you look it up in the dictionary, you’ll likely get something along the lines of: someone who is a specialist in city planning. But I bet that there are many people out there who would self-identity as being an urbanist, but who would also not consider themselves specialists in the field.

  The term has evolved to imply other things.

  To this end, Scott Bonjukian (over at The Urbanist) recently wrote a good piece called, Why I call myself an urbanist. And in it he offered up this definition from the former mayor of Seattle, Michael McGinn:

  “At the core, urbanists want more people living in cities, so they support more urban housing of all types. They prioritize walking, biking and transit, and support a high quality shared public realm. Parks, nightlife, theaters, transit and taxis can replace backyards, TV rooms and private cars. That way we can live well with less stuff, sprawl and pollution.

  I’ll go a little further, and say urbanists prefer bottom up, granular, and seemingly chaotic innovation to top-down planning and mega-projects. Think the “Main Street” of neighborhoods with food trucks and lots of little stores, as opposed to tax-subsidized big box stores with legally required massive parking lots. Bike lanes, crosswalks and plazas instead of public garages and new highways.

  Urbanists believe that mixing people and ideas creates wealth in a city. Why else would people choose to live so close to each other? Cities, therefore, should be open to people of every background, ethnicity, race and class to maximize the potential from our human capital.”

  Scott added that most urbanists are probably also environmentalists on some level, and I can certainly see where he’s coming from with that. Regardless, I think the above definition is pretty apt.

  But if you unpack some of the points, this definition raises some interesting questions. For instance, take the first line around supporting housing of all types. 

  This could mean that even if you lived in an inner city transit-served single family neighborhood, but you didn’t support alternate housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, accessory dwelling units and/or laneway houses, then you might not be a true urbanist. You would rather homogeneity over a “chaotic” mix of housing types. And I can certainly think of inner city neighborhoods in Toronto that have fought against “monstrous” duplexes. 

  So I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the above definition of urbanist. Do you agree or disagree? Is there anything you would add or take away? Are you an urbanist? Let us know in the comment section below.

  2016.01.19

• Toronto’s King Street to be transformed into a transit + pedestrian corridor

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  I try not to focus on local Toronto issues this much, but this morning an important initiative was announced and it’s blowing up my Twitter feed.

  By spring 2017, the city hopes to have a pilot project in place that will transform King Street – running from Liberty Village in the west to the Distillery District in the east – into a priority-transit and pedestrian corridor.

  This isn’t to say the street will be closed to cars. I would imagine that at least 1 lane would remain for cars going each way. Instead it will be redesigned to prioritize transit, pedestrians, and cyclists.

  So why is this exciting?

  The King streetcar is currently broken. If you’ve ever taken it across downtown during rush hour, you know exactly what I mean. It’s infuriating. You might as well be crawling on your hands and knees. One of the goals of this initiative will be to get it working again. Good.

  The shoulders of downtown – along King West and King East – are seeing some of the greatest intensification in the region. So much that it’s common for people in this city to complain that Toronto misplanned it all by allowing this development before the transit was there. Well, this is a quick and inexpensive way to get the transit there. Remember that when the inevitable “war on car” rhetoric ratchets up over the next year.

  The project will be deployed, first, as a pilot project. That will allow the project team to test and iterate. It has also become the way you get things approved in cities. You first make them temporary. 

  But I am certain that we will quickly discover how necessary these changes were.

  2016.01.18

• 3 changes to John Tory’s SmartTrack transit plan

  Last week Oliver Moore of the Globe and Mail announced that Toronto mayor John Tory’s SmartTrack transit plan is evolving to feel less like SmartTrack and more like what Metrolinx had been planning all along.

  Here’s the map from the Globe and Mail:

  

  The 3 big changes are as follows (and numbered accordingly on the above map):

  1. 

  The western end of the line will be replaced by an extension of the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT (currently under construction) running from Mount Dennis to Pearson Airport. This is what was originally proposed.

  2. 

  The “U” running from Mount Dennis in the west, down through downtown, and up to Kennedy in the east is what remains of the original SmartTrack line and will operate as some sort of “heavy rail” service on existing GO Transit lines. The original election campaign plan was to run trains every 15 minutes, but that was deemed too infrequent to attract riders, so now Metrolinx and everyone is trying to figure out how to get it down to every 5-10 minutes and feel more like subway.

  3. 

  The extension north of Eglinton Avenue to suburban Markham (in the northeast) is being pushed out and will be dealt with sometime in the future. Keeping the first phase of SmartTrack south of Eglinton on both ends is beneficial in avoiding the issue of SmartTrack and the Scarborough subway extension cannibalizing each other. (In my opinion, this issue is a perfect example of what happens when transit planning becomes too political.)

  The net result is a plan that is looking less and less like the original SmartTrack. I’m not complaining though because I have never been a big supporter of SmartTrack. I have always thought we should be focusing on the downtown relief subway line and on allowing Metrolinx to just execute on its regional express rail (RER) strategy.

  For more on this topic, check out Steve Munro’s post, SmartTrack: Now You See It, Now You Don’t! He’s far more of an expert than I am on these sorts of issues.

  2016.01.17