Tag: urbanism

• Optimistic and excited

  With seemingly so much happening in the world these days — everything from COVID to climate change — it is perhaps easy to feel a little discouraged about the current state of affairs. But I am an optimist. And as I mentioned on Twitter a few weeks ago, I haven’t been this excited about the future of tech and the internet in a long time.

  We are seeing the auto industry quickly transition to electric vehicles (though, in my opinion, not driving at all is still better for our cities than driving something that is electric). Norway has created the world’s first ever zero emission, autonomous cargo ship. And LIDAR vision systems are looking pretty promising as one of the technologies that will ultimately power fully autonomous vehicles.

  I believe in the resiliency of cities and, as I have been arguing on this blog all throughout COVID, I think the claims about the demise of our cities have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, I think this pandemic has forced us rethink a lot of things about our urban environments, including how we allocate and use our public spaces (think patios). Some of these changes have been for the better and they’re not going to go away.

  I think the benefits of working in close proximity to others are too great to have everyone working remotely. Yes, we have learned that decentralization is possible. But there’s an overwhelming amount of research telling us that we’re all more innovative and productive when we cluster together in cities and in offices.

  I have been back in the office almost 100% of the time since it has been possible to do that. And I am much happier and more productive as a result. There’s also research suggesting that there are psychological benefits to a reasonable commute. It creates a break in our day, allows us to detach from our work, and gives us time to process stuff in our mind.

  I think things like digital fashion and augmented reality are going to have profound impact on the way we consume things. You could also argue that there’s a sustainability angle to more digital and less physical. And of course, I am excited about the transformations that I believe cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies will continue to bring to many different industries (if not most).

  This morning I was reading a Financial Times article about cryptocurrencies in the developing world. It it perhaps no surprise that many of these countries are providing to be early adopters. People are leapfrogging over to cryptocurrencies because their existing currencies and financial systems aren’t effective enough. That has lead to adoption and penetration that looks something like this according to FT:

  

  There is, of course, many other things to be optimistic and excited about. But I’ll leave that for the comment section below. What are you excited about these days?

  2021.09.05

• Our Plan Toronto

  

  The City of Toronto is currently reviewing its Official Plan, which is a city planning document that acts as a kind of master guide for land user matters. It is a pretty important document in that it dictates, among other things, what kind of development should go where. One way that it is often explained is that our OP is the “vision”, whereas our zoning by-laws are the “precision.”

  This update will be completed by next summer. Why? Because the Province of Ontario said so. (That’s how things work around here. I think cities should have more power.)

  Toronto is expected to grow by more than 700,000 people and add some 450,000 jobs by 2051. Where these people and jobs will be accommodated is a big part of the exercise here.

  As part of this review, the City of Toronto published this Story Map. It is pretty neat. It looks at how the city has grown over the years (the above image is Toronto’s 1943 Master Plan). It explains a little bit about how planning works. And it has a bunch of stats on how people live and work in the city. I just used it to confirm my hunch that there are exactly zero single-family homes in my neighborhood.

  Looking at the above map from 1943, it is, of course, interesting to see how much the city has grown. But it also interesting to note that many of the neighborhoods that now form part of the city were just “New Residential Areas with Prospective Populations.” They were colors and numbers on a map in areas that had yet to be built out by developers.

  When I see this, I can’t help but wonder what the narrative was like at the time with respect to these new developments. Were people upset? Were people happy? Did people even notice what was happening on the edges of their city? Because sprawl, and that’s what this was, is quite different from intensification.

  Our focus today is on the latter. It is about building up as opposed to out. There’s no more room for yellow shaded areas with numbers. This means that we will end up using our land and other resources more efficiently, but it also presents a whole host of issues. Change is hard. Intensification is hard. Part of the job of this document is to navigate some of these challenges.

  If you’d like to get engaged with the city’s Official Plan review, head over here.

  2021.08.26

• Built form and climate impact

  

  Building height and density are not one and the same. You can have tall buildings configured in a low-density way (think post-war towers in the park). And you can have low/mid-rise buildings configured in a high-density way (think Paris and Barcelona). This is one of the reasons why it is important to decouple density and tallness when thinking about our cities.

  This line of thinking is the approach that a recent study took when trying to determine the optimal built form for minimizing climate impact. In the study they define four building typologies: 1) high density, high-rise, 2) low density, high-rise, 3) high density, low-rise, and 4) low density, low-rise.

  What they found was that taller environments tend to have higher life cycle GHG emissions, but that lower-density environments are (obviously) far more land consumptive. To determine life cycle GHG emissions they looked at both embodied and operating emissions, which is why the taller stuff didn’t score as well under their methodology. There’s typically a lot of concrete and steel in tall buildings.

  This lead the team to conclude that if you want to optimize around climate impact, you should probably aim for that perfect middle ground: dense, but not super tall.

  But as Joe Cortright (City Observatory) rightly pointed out in his email newsletter, one of the big limitations of this analysis is that it does not consider transportation-related impacts. And since we know that transportation is one of if not the largest source of GHG emissions and that how we get around is heavily dependent on land use patterns, it is probably an important piece to consider.

  Photo by Alfons Taekema on Unsplash

  2021.08.20

• What is the FSI of Paris?

  

  In the world of development, there is something known as a floor space index (FSI). Some places call it a floor area ratio (FAR), but they mean the same thing. It is one measure of density. To calculate it, you simply divide the total building area by the site area. For example, if you had a 25,000 square foot piece of land and you were to build a single storey building that occupied every bit of the site (also 25,000 sf), you would have an FSI or FAR of 1.0. If you built a two storey building on only half of the site, you would similarly have an FSI or FAR of 1.0. The area didn’t change, you just moved things around. That’s how FSI’s work.

  A ratio like this tells you how intensely you may be using a piece of land, but it doesn’t tell you everything or necessarily give you the full picture. Which is why I find it silly when too much emphasis is placed on this singular number. I don’t think anyone in the history of the world has ever traveled to a city — let’s take Paris — and remarked how beautiful it is because of its floor space indices. Nobody thinks like this. It’s way too esoteric. What guides our experiences is built form, the ground plane, relationships to streets, materiality, light, context, and many other important things.

  To give a specific example, let’s take One Delisle. This project was in effect approved twice. After it was approved by City Council in July 2020 an adjacent land parcel was acquired. It wasn’t absolutely necessary to do this, but we felt it made for better city building and so we did it. (We wanted to look back knowing we did the right thing.) That meant that we needed to go back to Council to revise our approvals, which ended up happening at the beginning of this year (public staff report, here). There was no change to the tower and and no change to any of the key setbacks or stepbacks. But the overall FSI did go down!

  Will anyone notice or care about this lower ratio? I doubt it. Which is why I think it’s silly to try and plan our cities around them. It feels like design by spreadsheet. Thankfully, I think many people recognize this.

  Photo by Thibault Penin on Unsplash

  2021.08.18

• Risk and architecture

  Building things, as we all know, is a risky endeavor. I think of myself as an optimist, but the reality is that there are countless things that can go wrong. There’s approvals risk, political risk, market risk, construction risk, design risk, and many other kinds of risk, some/many of which will be entirely unforeseen. If you asked me two years ago, I wouldn’t have listed pandemic risk as being all that high up on the list.

  So one way to think about the process of building/developing is that it is an exercise in risk mitigation. This makes it sound a lot less sexy than “city building.” Given this, there can be a natural and understandable tendency to want to repeat what worked the last time around. Why make a change and introduce more risk into the system if you don’t have to, right? This is arguably one of the reasons why it is often said that the real state industry isn’t all that innovative. Too busy managing risk.

  To give a specific example, let’s say you’re really focused on managing design risk. In this case, you might make the decision to always work with the same architect. This way you can establish a set of typical approaches and a standard spec. You know how to work together and you know what you’re getting when it comes to working drawings. Rinse and repeat as best you can.

  There is also something to be said about a kind of product-driven or branded approach to development. In this case you want some consistency to help build a specific brand and experience. And just because you’re using the same firm, doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t innovate and be design forward. This is what great architects do. Think Foster + Partners and Apple. Their stores are powerful brand symbols but also wonderful and highly site specific.

  An alternative approach might be to continually use different (design) architects. And maybe partnering with an array of celebrated firms is part of your brand story. You introduce a certain degree of design risk because you’re now trying out and building new relationships, but you could perhaps argue that you’re mitigating other risks. Does using a brand name architect help to reduce market risk, for example? In some markets, it’s almost essential.

  I don’t think there’s a right or wrong approach here. Use the same firm, or don’t. Use international starchitects, or don’t. The point is simply that development is fraught with risks that need to be managed. Design is one of many. How you choose to do that depends on what you’re trying to do and what you’re after.

  2021.07.12

• Cross-sections of the Kowloon Walled City

  The Kowloon Walled City was once one of the most densely populated precincts in the world. And by some measures, it was. Prior to its demolition in 1993, the Walled City was believed to house some 50,000 people — mostly informally — and was known for problems of prostitution, gambling, and drug usage.

  But despite these problems, the Walled City is the kind of urban settlement that fascinates architects, planners, and other city builders. This is partially because it wasn’t centrally planned. There is no individual architect or specific team responsible for its design.

  It was, instead, a kind of self-organizing system — both from a built form standpoint and from, I’m sure, a socioeconomic standpoint. And so it is fascinating to see what results when you let that happen on its own.

  Here are a series of cross-sections of the Walled City that were meticulously drawn prior to its demolition. They obviously aren’t new, but it is the first time I am seeing them. It is interesting to see everything from mahjong parlors to strip clubs stacked on top of one another in such a confined space.

  This was the Kowloon Walled City.

  2021.07.06

• Unicorns overwhelmingly originate in big cities

  In the world of startups, a unicorn is used to refer to a company with a market cap greater than $1 billion. A decacorn, the latest benchmark, is what it sounds like in that it’s a company with a market cap greater than $10 billion.

  While unicorn status is just one measure, valuations are an important yardstick for cities and countries. How many big new companies are you creating? That is a critical question because, presumably, these big new companies are going to create a bunch of new jobs and generate a lot of new wealth for people.

  This recent blog post by Elad Gil is a great summary of what’s happening in the world from this perspective. The raw data is also available if you’d like to dig deeper.

  Here are the number of new unicorns since October 2020 by city:

  

  Silicon Valley, not surprisingly, continues to dominate, followed by New York.

  Here is a breakdown for the United States as a whole:

  

  Miami and Austin have been in the news a lot over the past year and their startup scenes may very well be on the rise relative to other US cities. But it’s interesting to see other smaller cities on this list, like Salt Lake City, who are, at least right now, holding their own.

  I found this last set of two charts particularly interesting:

  

  

  They are showing unicorn count (first) and unicorn market cap (second) as a percentage of their respective countries. For example, Silicon Valley is sitting at about 47% and 51%, respectively. So about half of all unicorns in the US have originated from this geography.

  But for most other cities on this list, the percentage is much higher and, in many cases, it is 100%. (Silicon Valley is perhaps relatively low because the US has lots of other big and important cities.) For me, this shows the continued dominance of cities. If you’re building the next great unicorn or decacorn, the data tells us that you’re probably doing it in a big city somewhere. And I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

  2021.06.27

• Patio season: on

  

  

  

  Shot on a DJI Mavic Mini and edited in Lightroom.

  2021.06.12

• Small suites — responding to the market or social engineering?

  

  Let’s talk some more about floor plan designs and the economic constraints that form part of the decision making process. There continues to be a narrative out there that for-profit developers only want to construct small apartments (a form of social engineering perhaps) and that they aren’t focused on livability. So let’s dig into some of the constraints.

  Consider that the average price of a new construction condominium in downtown Toronto last quarter (Q1 2021) was $1,419 per square foot. And I bet that this number has already increased. Now consider that, in the City of Toronto, the “growing up guidelines” suggest that an ideal family-sized three bedroom suite should be around 1,140 square feet.

  When you multiply these two numbers together, you get an “ideal” three bedroom suite that costs just over $1.6 million. Of course, this is without parking. So if you want downtown parking, add another $100-200k (which, at this price point, is still almost certainly going to be a loss leader for the developer).

  All of a sudden, you’ve now got a $1.7 – 1.8 million residence. This will work in some submarkets and in some locations, but certainly not all.

  So what happens is that the end price becomes a constraint. And in order to make the suite more affordable, the developer will naturally look for ways to make it smaller. Turn this into a 900 square foot three bedroom and all of a sudden you shave off over $300k from the price.

  The point I am hoping to make is that developers generally aspire to respond to what the (sub)market wants. If the (sub)market wants a certain price point, developers will try and meet that need. If the (sub)market wants massive apartments, developers will gladly deliver. (We’re working on combining some supremely awesome suites at this very moment in fact.)

  It is “what if” instead of “should be” thinking.

  Photo by Loewe Technologies on Unsplash

  2021.06.03

• The tokenization of cities

  The web in its current state is like a city without public spaces. People can only interact in places owned by someone else, and a small group of landlords captures an oversized share of all economic activity. – Dror Poleg

  I would encourage you all to read Dror Poleg’s recent article called, “The Token Society: Cryptocurrencies will change the way we work, live, and love.” It’s an interesting read, particularly for us urbanists. Poleg starts with urban history. He first talks about how the emergence of industrial cities allowed for new divisions of labor. The example he gives is that of the quatorzième, which is a job that emerged in Parisian society sometime in the late 19th century. The job of a quatorzième was literally to be the 14th person at dinners and functions. Since a headcount of 13 was thought to be bad luck, it was important to be able to call on someone at a moment’s notice to fill this critically important role. While this probably seems silly in today’s context — I mean, who goes out anymore? — it was a real thing and it was a thing that the modern city was suddenly able to provide. Poleg goes on to thread this idea all the way through to today. Web 2.0 enabled a new sharing economy and much larger digital communities (though note the quote at the top of this post). However, we’re nowhere near done yet. Web 3.0 is going to, in his words, enable “the finalization [or tokenization] of all human activity.” Welcome to the new token society.

  P.S. I’m by no means an expert on cryptocurrencies. I have just been watching from afar for the past several years. But over the last few months, it has been hard not to pay attention to what is happening with NFTs and the Ethereum network. And I’m not just talking about the price of ETH (which is up ~56% over the last month alone). I am now of the opinion that we are seeing one of the first mainstream use cases emerge on top of a blockchain network. And yes, I believe it will also change our cities.

  2021.05.03