Tag: urbanism

• Transit investment & density (in San Francisco)

  

  This recent Streetsblog article about the possibility of turning the M Ocean View line in San Francisco into a kind of subway is a good reminder about the always important connection between transit investment and density. The question I always pose to myself is, “If I were a private company deciding where to spend the money on a new and expensive subway line, what would I look for?” Most of us recognize that population and employment densities would be near, if not at, the top of the list.

  Of course, if the company were fully private, then we would run the risk of low-density / unprofitable areas of the city not being serviced by transit. For a variety of reasons, that’s not an ideal outcome, which is why transit operators are mostly subsidized. The challenge is that the way we plan transit in most — or all? — cities has become so highly politicized today. That’s how we end up with the wrong transit technologies in areas that don’t have the density to properly support them.

  Now, I don’t know the specifics of the M Ocean View line. (Maybe some of you do and will provide those thoughts in the comments below.) So this is not a post about what may or may not be appropriate in this particular instance. But it is a commentary on the importance of fiscal prudence and sound transportation planning.

  Photo by Lance Anderson on Unsplash

  2019.09.28

• Metrolinx to further optimize the Union Pearson Express train

  

  It was announced this week that Metrolinx will be making changes to the popular UPX train service that connects Union Station to Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. This is an interesting transit story. And as someone who will be moving to the Junction (adjacent to one of the stops along the way), I have a vested interest in this announcement.

  The UPX started out as a high-priced boutique train service to the airport. A one-way fare was $27.50 per person (without a PRESTO card). This was too much and I argued that here on the blog. If you looked at the math and compared it to the alternatives, such as taking an UberX, most people were not going to take this train.

  The fares were ultimately dropped — by a lot — and the service then took off not only as a link to Pearson but as an inner-city commuter service. I now sometimes call it the Union-Junction Express, because the actual train ride from Union to Bloor St (at Dundas West) is about 7 minutes once you’re on the train.

  The announcement this week merely solidifies the train’s evolution from high-priced boutique service (which didn’t work) to airport/commuter service (which is really working). The trains are expected to run more frequently now, some of which will continue to make the same stops as today and some of which will stop in new locations along the line.

  As transit-advocate Cameron MacLeod said in the Globe and Mail yesterday, “there’s both good and bad news here.” The good news is more frequent service. Even quicker trips in some instances. And better integration with the broader GO train network. The bad news is the award-winning UPX station at Union will no longer be needed. The service is expected to move to a new platform.

  Photo by Sean Thoman on Unsplash

  2019.09.26

• Solving the rubik’s cube

  

  Developing a building can often feel like you’re trying to solve a rubik’s cube. Among other things, you have to manage a myriad of different stakeholders, all of which — naturally — operate in their own self-interest. There’s the city, community, politicians, various agencies, consultants, tenants, purchasers, lenders, investors, the market at large (of which you really have no control of), and many others. Oftentimes you even have stakeholders whose interests are mutually exclusive. Indeed, the things that they want can sometimes be at odds with each other. Your job is to figure out a solution that satisfies as many of these interests as possible.

  To give you an example, let’s say that you’ve been asked to introduce a stepback into your building in order to break up the elevation. From an urban design standpoint, this may make perfect sense. Hello, datum line. But now your construction costs just went up. You have to transfer your mechanical lines, insulate the roof, introduce new bulkheads, and, for the purposes of this example, let’s say you now need to introduce a structural transfer. This is big cost item that you hadn’t accounted for. And because you just reduced the height of the building to satisfy another stakeholder, you don’t have the excess clear height to accommodate the additional depth required by this new structural element. There is, of course, always a solution. But usually something will need to give.

  At the same time, this raises some interesting philosophical questions. What’s more important in this example? The urban design move or keeping construction costs low so that the building can be delivered more affordably? The cynics will argue that this is a moot point because developers will always profit maximize. But I would encourage you to check out some of my past posts, such as “Cost-plus pricing” and “The impact of inclusionary zoning on development feasibility.” This problem solving dynamic is one of the things that makes development so challenging. But it is also one of the things that makes it incredibly rewarding.

  Photo by Ivan Bandura on Unsplash

  2019.09.14

• New Monocle City Series to launch in Chengdu

  

  Today, Monocle announced a new “City Series,” which will take the form of a focused half-day summit. The objective is to explore the urban issues facing mayors, developers, investors, and citizens. The first summit will take place this November 4 (2019) in Chengdu — the capital of the Sichuan province in China.

  For those of you who aren’t familiar with Chengdu, it’s a modest Chinese city with over 14 million people in the administrative area and over 10 million people in the urban boundary (2014 figures). It is the 5th most populous agglomeration in China.

  I can’t vouch for the quality of this new series, since this will be the first one, but Monocle has been running a longer, multi-day, quality of life conference for a few years now. Mostly, I am intrigued by the selection of Chengdu as the inaugural city for this new series. I take it as evidence that interesting things are happening there.

  Image: Monocle

  2019.09.11

• Art vs. transit

  This September 25, 2019, the Bronx Museum of the Arts will be opening up a new exhibition called, Henry Chalfant: Art vs. Transit, 1977-1987. Henry is a renowned photographer who is most known for his work on graffiti, breakdance, and overall street culture. This exhibition is about all of this, but there’s a particular focus on the subway car art that was once ubiquitous in New York City.

  There’s also a Kickstarter campaign if you’d like to support this exhibition. What struck me as I watched the campaign video, was that the “urban street culture” of this era doesn’t seem to exist in quite the same way today (or maybe I’m missing it). In the video, Henry talks about things like the birth of hip hop, which he documented outside, on the street.

  We shouldn’t forget that New York was also a scary place at this time. Removing the subway art that Henry fastidiously documented was one of the ways in which the city is thought to have broken its patterns of crime. But at the same time, there’s something really special about new ideas forming out in the public realm.

  It’s also a uniquely urban phenomenon.

  2019.08.30

• How homeowners cause gentrification

  Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron, Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic, and author of, Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in New Urban America.

  In his recent piece in Beyond Chron, he makes the argument that, from San Francisco to New York, homeowners who oppose new multi-unit housing are in fact the ones driving gentrification.

  He admits that there are some exceptions and cites San Francisco’s SOMA neighborhood as a place that became upscale because of new development. (I think it’s more nuanced than that.)

  But the key point is that there countless examples of neighborhoods changing their socioeconomic position without the presence of new development. (There’s investment, but at a smaller or individual scale.)

  Here’s an excerpt from Shaw’s article:

  Banning apartments from single family home neighborhoods limits new residents to those who can afford to purchase a home. Banning new multi-unit construction also artificially reduces supply, driving up home prices for existing owners.

  That’s how most San Francisco neighborhoods, and those in other high-housing cost cities, gentrified. It happened with little or no multi-unit construction. Yet homeowners have adeptly shifted blame for the gentrification of urban neighborhoods from their own land use policies to builders—even when no building has occurred.

  But in the end, do these details even matter? What we have here are competing self-interests. Developers, obviously, want to build. And many people benefit when this does happen. But others don’t see it that way.

  2019.08.24

• The performance of cities proper

  Richard Florida is currently running a four-part CityLab series on the economic performance of America’s cities. What makes this study somewhat unique is that it looks at cities proper, rather than at their larger metro areas. In some cases there may not be that much of a difference. But in other cases, the performance of the city proper could be very different from that of the broader area.

  Here are the fastest and slowest growing cities from 2012 to 2017:

  

  Here are the fastest and slowing growing job markets:

  

  And here is the growth in share of adults with a graduate degree:

  

  It’s interesting to see Seattle at the top of the population growth list. It is not a sprawling sunbelt city. It is an expensive tech hub. And it is also interesting to see Miami’s strong employment and education growth. Years ago, Paul Graham wrote an essay arguing that tech hubs have two prerequisites: capital and nerds. He went on to argue that Miami has lots of the former, but not much of the latter. Maybe that’s changing.

  2019.08.23

• The reversion of European cities

  

  This recent Economist article makes the argument that, despite the recent (and sometimes annoying) proliferation of electric scooters across Europe, we probably shouldn’t be that grouchy about them. And that’s, “because the rise of the electric scooter is part of a broader and welcome phenomenon: the gradual retreat of the car from the European city.” By way of one example, by next year, Paris will have grown its bike lane network by 50% in five years.

  The article ends with the point that, while this may seem like a “revolution,” it’s actually a “reversion.” European cities such as Paris and Antwerp (examples from the article) were both built before the advent of the car and were never really designed for it, although Haussmann’s wide avenues certainly helped. All of this gets back to a point I tried to make over the weekend with this post about driving and parking, and the relevance of urban form.

  Reversion is a lot easier than a revolution. And for most North American cities, a revolution is what’s needed if we are in fact serious about a post-car future.

  Photo by Z Klein on Unsplash

  2019.08.14

• Thoughts on driving and parking

  

  Adrian Cook’s recent blog post about parking got me thinking about a few driving-related issues. Adrian points out that most condo buildings only allow owners to rent out their parking spots to people who already live in the building. But oftentimes, that’s not the customer. The people in the market for a downtown spot are the ones who commute into the city. And so what we are seeing in many downtowns is an oversupply of parking. Municipalities need to adjust their requirements.

  What I have found is that most, but not all, cities are now fairly flexible when it comes to urban parking requirements. They recognize the hypocrisy in trying to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating a certain number of parking spots. And so the driver is more typically the market. Empty nesters and families who buy larger suites — at least here in Toronto — still almost always want parking. And it’s a deal breaker for them. Sometimes they want 2 spots.

  Of course, there are also many instances where the location and unit mix of a project can support building absolutely no parking. There are lots of examples of the market excepting this, and so my view on parking is that there needs to be flexibility. Parking is typically a loss leader. The incentives are in place to build a hell of a lot less of it. But developers build it because they have to.

  Lastly, I find that discussions around car dependency tend to ignore that we have designed vast swaths of our cities to be positively inhospitable to people who aren’t driving. Adrian is right in that if you look at the modal splits for people who live in downtown Vancouver and downtown Toronto, you will find a lot less drivers. And that’s because the environment is much better suited to other forms of mobility. The solution starts with urban form.

  Photo by Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum on Unsplash

  2019.08.11

• #BestStreetInTheWorld

  The below Twitter thread, initiated by Brent Toderian, is a great collection of some of the “best streets in the world.”

  QUESTION: What’s the BEST STREET you’ve ever come across, anywhere in the world? Use whatever way you choose to define “best!” Show the street, tell us why, & include the hashtag #BestStreetInTheWorld pic.twitter.com/lUhZHWwImh

  — Brent Toderian (@BrentToderian) July 23, 2019

  I would encourage you to click through and have a scroll. The one thing that you’ll likely notice about almost all of the contributions is that the streets tend to be fairly dense/urban and they tend to be oriented around the pedestrian. No surprise there.

  My only qualm with some, but not all, of these streets is that — while beautiful from an urban design standpoint — many of them can feel quite touristy and/or commercially generic. They are the street you go to when you’re visiting the place, but they are perhaps lacking in urban authenticity.

  I don’t mean to take anything away from the beautifully designed streets in the above thread. In fact, some of them aren’t at all commercial and are simply magical places to be — period, full stop. See, for example, La Condensa (neighborhood) in Mexico City.

  My argument is simply that the natural cycle of cities and neighborhoods sometimes means that the best streets for new ideas and small businesses are maybe not the most beautiful ones. Part of this is a function of rents and part of this is function of the fact that the best cities are constantly reinventing themselves.

  2019.08.01