Tag: urbanism

• Why can’t cities reach equilibrium?

  The October issue of The New Yorker has an interesting piece called: Naked Cities – The death and life of urban America.

  I find the article ends up rambling a bit, but I like the idea presented right at the beginning. The idea that cities can never really find equilibrium. They’re either dying, or victims of their own success.

  Here’s that paragraph:

  Cities can’t win. When they do well, people resent them as citadels of inequality; when they do badly, they are cesspools of hopelessness. In the seventies and eighties, the seemingly permanent urban crisis became the verdict that American civilization had passed on itself. Forty years later, cities mostly thrive, crime has been in vertiginous decline, the young cluster together in old neighborhoods, drinking more espresso per capita in Seattle than in Naples, while in San Francisco the demand for inner-city housing is so keen that one-bedroom apartments become scenes of civic conflict—and so big cities turn into hateful centers of self-absorbed privilege. We oscillate between “Taxi Driver” and “The Bonfire of the Vanities” without arriving at a stable picture of something in between.

  I like this because there’s truth to it. But at the end of day, this is just one of the many challenges facing great city building. 

  To solve the problem of affordable housing you could just be a city in decline. But that’s not much fun. So the better option, however difficult it may be, is to figure out how to manage the negative externalities associated with winning.

  2015.09.30

• The future of housing in Toronto

  On Monday evening I gave a 45 minute talk at the Rotman School to a delegation of about 70 people from Portland. The talk was about Toronto housing, but more specifically about the history and possible future of high-rise housing in this city. 

  Thanks to everyone who commented on my lead-up post over the weekend. It was really helpful to hear what other people in this city (as well as people not from this city) are thinking. Many of the comments also echoed my own beliefs.

  The narrative I told in my presentation was about two significant, yet very different, periods of time when Toronto built more high-rise than low-rise housing. The first was our post-war suburban slab tower boom. And the second, which we are currently living through, is really the outcome of the Places to Grow Act (2005).

  But as I mentioned over the weekend, the really interesting question is: what’s next?

  In my view, what we are seeing today is fundamentally different than what we saw in the post-war years. Despite the fact that we were building towers then and we are also building towers now (albeit much taller ones), the ideology behind them has changed. It has gone from suburban to urban.

  Toronto’s post-war towers were built upon a particular dream. The dream of getting in your car, escaping the decay of the city, whisking up the Don Valley Parkway (nobody whisks on the DVP), and being rejuvenated by all the light, air, and green space afforded to you in your Ville Radieuse.

  But it turns out that people of means didn’t want that back then. They wanted a suburban house. That was the dream.

  Today, however, cities are back in vogue. 

  Companies are moving into city centers to compete for the best talent. Retailers are moving downtown to capture disposable income. And the most pressing problems are no longer about decay and urban blight, they are about housing affordability, gentrification, and too many rich people pushing out the poor.

  The narrative has changed.

  So in the context of Toronto, I feel as if we are at an inflection point when it comes to housing. The multi-family dream may not have stuck decades ago, but I believe it will stick for many, though not all, today. And this will happen for a variety of reasons ranging from sheer preference to sheer necessity. The alternative is no longer an affordable bungalow on a 50′ x 150′ lot that happens to be 10 minutes from the subway.

  But as a result of this shift, I also think a number of other things will happen. 

  Eventually, Toronto will look to loosen some of the land use restrictions on its single family neighborhoods. This could mean “gentle” low-rise intensification (new planning buzzword, take note), as well as the acceptance of laneway or accessory dwelling housing. This won’t be popular, as one person said in the comments over the weekend, but eventually the pressures will become too great.

  At the same time, I think we’ll be brought full circle with respect to our suburban towers. The suburban ideals in place at the time means that many of these tower communities have relatively low densities. That represents a tremendous opportunity for this city and it’s only a matter of time before we truly figure out how to unlock them.

  But for all the change and disruption that’s happening in Toronto, I think it’s also worth saying that those of us who live here should consider ourselves a lucky bunch.

  One of the things I actually asked the delegation from Portland was, what struck you the most when you arrived in Toronto? The response I got was: its vibrancy. 

  Everywhere you walk downtown, they said, people are on the streets – walking, cycling, and hanging out. In fact, some said it’s almost hard to remember which street is which because every street seems to be so full of activity. Most North American cities do not have this kind of sustained vibrancy in the core, I was told. And so that makes us a pretty special place. We must be doing something right.

  It’s easy to take those sorts of things for granted when you live somewhere. So today I’m trying to do the exact opposite of that. I’m trying to stop and appreciate the place I call home.

  2015.09.30

• Toronto housing — where we came from and where we’re probably headed

  This morning I’m working on a presentation that I’m going to be giving one evening next week to a delegation coming in from the US. The title of the presentation is the title of this blog post: Toronto housing – where we came from and where we’re probably headed.

  My plan is to start in and around the 50s and 60s and talk about Toronto’s first tower boom following the war. For this time period, I’m relying a lot on the work of Graeme Stewart of ERA Architects, who is one of, if not the, expert on post war towers in this city.

  

  I’m then going to move onto our current high-rise condo boom and compare the two.

  Because the interesting thing about the first boom is that, after it finished, we basically returned to the typical North American housing model: building single-family homes. And it wasn’t until this recent boom of the early 2000s that we once again resumed building more high-rise than low-rise housing. That is still the case today.

  But the question I want to address is really, what’s next? Where are we headed? Is history going to repeat itself or is – dare I say – this time different?

  I’ll eventually get to those questions here on Architect This City, but first I want to hear from you. So here’s what I’m proposing: leave your thoughts in the comment section below and I will feature the best ones in my presentation next week as the voices of Toronto. I’m sure many of you know that I’m a big fan of crowdsourced information.

  So here goes. Where is Toronto housing headed and how will we be living in the next 10+ years? Will we be raising families up in towers or not? Please comment by Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 6pm (ET) to make sure I have time to feature you in the presentation. 

  Thanks for participating 🙂

  2015.09.26

• The day modern architecture died

  

  In 1956, a large 57 acre urban renewal project was completed in St. Louis. It consisted of 33 apartment buildings, each 11 storeys tall. The entire complex was known as Pruitt-Igoe.

  Early residents seemed to really like the buildings. The first tenant, Frankie Mae Raglin, called it the “nicest place she’d ever had.” 

  But 16 years later in 1972, the first 3 buildings within Pruitt-Igoe were demolished. And in 1977, architectural historian Charles Jencks proclaimed that the day Pruitt-Igoe was demolished was the day that modern architecture had officially died.

  The modernist dream had failed. Architecture had failed us. Segregated “towers in a park” was not the way to socially engineer away poverty and slums from our cities. 

  This is the narrative that we have told ourselves, not only in St. Louis, but in cities all around the world.

  But was it really all architecture’s fault?

  Stuyvesant Town in New York (80 acres) shares many of the same architectural ideals that Pruitt-Igoe embodied and it seems to be holding up just fine. The same could be said for Lafayette Park in Detroit (46 acres), which is probably more telling given what the city witnessed in the years following 1956 – the year Lafayette Park was completed.

  So the reality is far more complex.

  Between 1950 and 1970, St. Louis lost about 30% of its population. Coming on the end, Pruitt-Igoe had a vacancy rate of 88%. Racial tensions were also surging. Here’s how the American Institute of Architects put it back in 2012:

  Pruitt-Igoe was built during a tumultuous time in U.S. race relations in a city with an intense history of racial segregation. Pruitt and Igoe were designed as separate, racially segregated projects: Pruitt for African-American residents, Igoe for whites. As the towers were going up, the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision banned segregation. Faced with the possibility of living next to African-American neighbors in an integrated Pruitt-Igoe, white residents moved out en masse, exacerbating Pruitt-Igoe’s vacancy problems.
  

  So while most cities rightfully would’t dare build in the spirit of Pruitt-Igoe today, this was not a strictly architectural problem. There is always an underlying social, political, and economic environment. And unfortunately architecture, alone, cannot solve everything. 

  If you’re interested in this topic, I recommend you check out a paper by Katharine G. Bristol called, The Pruitt-Igoe Myth.

  Image by Bettmann/Corbis via The Guardian

  2015.09.25

• Mega-cities vs. networked cities

  

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

  Ed Glaeser, Giacomo Ponzetto, and Yimei Zou recently published a new academic paper called, Urban Networks: Spreading the Flow of Goods, People and Ideas. 

  The paper looks at whether it’s more advantageous to build huge and consolidated mega-cities or build connected networks of smaller urban centers (perhaps connected by high speed rail). As countries like China rapidly urbanize, this is something that many people are thinking about.

  In China, there is a lively urban planning debate
  about whether to facilitate the increased expansion of the vast agglomerations of Beijing and
  Shanghai or whether to focus on creating networks of cities that are smaller, albeit still much
  larger than almost all of the cities of Western Europe. The current government policy favors
  networks, in the hope that connected smaller cities may be free of the extreme downsides of
  mass agglomeration, such as extreme congestion, pollution and high housing costs.

  Like most things, there are real trade-offs. 

  In the paper, they assume that larger cities lead to more urban amenities, which in turn serves as an important magnet for skilled workers. However, for unskilled workers who may not care/benefit from the same urban amenities, it is possible for them to dislike the bigger cities. In this case, the benefits do not outweigh the negatives of urban expansion and an urban divide is created (rich/poor).

  One of the potential negatives is housing.

  The attraction of denser, not larger, mega-cities is determined also by the elasticity of
  housing supply. When it is easy to add extra homes on a narrow plot of land, as in Texas,
  then density becomes more attractive. European urban networks may well be the right
  answer because history and regulation makes it so hard to build in Europe’s older cities.
  Even though China has usually been quite friendly towards skyscrapers, the sheer scale of
  the Chinese population may still make the case for urban networks.

  If you’re interested in this topic, there’s a section (#2) in the paper on the history of urban networks that you might like.

  2015.09.21

• Vancouver never plays itself

  There’s something powerful about seeing/hearing cities being depicted in film, TV, and other kinds of pop culture. It creates familiarity and does a lot to drive the brand of that place.

  But how often are you just seeing one city disguised to look like another? Actually quite often.

  Here’s an interesting video that talks about how the 3rd largest film production city in North America never actually plays itself.

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojm74VGsZBU?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  I know that there are real economic benefits to being a cheap place to film movies, but I would love to see Canadian cities play themselves. There are also big benefits to that.

  Thanks to Scott Bonjukian at The Urbanist for sharing the above video this morning.

  2015.09.20

• From map books to Google Maps

  When I was a kid I remember my parents having something called a “Perly’s” in their car. It was basically a map book and it was the best thing around. 

  You would start by looking at a big grid of the city and then you’d find the specific area you were looking for and then flip to that page. If you were on the road a lot for work, a Perly’s was a mandatory addition to your car.

  Things have obviously come a long way since then. It could take you a long time to find the street you were looking for in a Perly’s. I remember doing that from the passenger seat. Now our phones do that for us and if the connection makes us wait for more than few seconds, we get irritated.

  But we’ve also moved beyond just static maps. 

  The other morning I was driving out to the suburbs and I saw this road sign telling me that – given current traffic conditions – it was going to take me 15 minutes to get to HWY 427. 

  

  Have you ever wondered how they come up with those time estimates?

  There are a few ways to do it. But here in Toronto along the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard it’s done using your mobile phone. Phones have unique network identifiers called MAC addresses. And when they try and connect via Bluetooth or Wifi they actually send out their MAC address.

  So what happens as you’re driving along is that your phone’s MAC address is being picked up at various locations. And since the distance between these various reception points is known, it’s pretty easy to determine how fast you’re traveling. That’s how they come up with those time/traffic estimates. 

  This data is anonymous but, in theory, the city also knows if people are speeding when the traffic is light.

  This same technology is being used by many retailers and shopping malls to track how people move through their spaces. It’s used to see, among other things, which merchandising strategies are working and what synergies one might be creating (or not creating) with the tenant mix.

  But getting back to traffic, there are obviously ways to collect traffic data without any additional physical infrastructure.

  As I was about to leave the suburbs and head back downtown, my phone somehow knew I was about to do that (perhaps because I was stopped at a Starbucks near the highway) and so it decided to tell me this:

  

  It wasn’t the best notification to receive on my phone, but I was impressed nonetheless. This traffic data is collected using GPS data transmitted from mobile phones using Google Maps, Apple Maps, and so on. Clearly we’ve come a long way since the days of manually leafing through a thick Perly’s.

  At the same time, it feels like we are still pretty far away from solving the problem of urban congestion. Every big city in the world is grappling with this issue. 

  Part of the problem, I think, is the belief that there’s some sort of silver bullet – more highways, a magic smartphone app, and so on – that will enable everyone to be able to drive around in their own car by themselves. I don’t believe that’s possible in big cities. And the sooner we get away from that toxic thinking, the quicker we’ll solve this problem.

  2015.09.19

• NXT City Night 2015

  

  I just got
  my tickets for NXT City Night,
  happening Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 6:30pm here in downtown Toronto.

  If you’re
  not familiar with NXT City Prize, it’s an annual urban design competition where
  young Canadians (35 years of age or younger) submit ideas to improve the built
  environment. The top submissions win a total of $9,000 in prize money and the winning idea
  gets paired up with the City of Toronto work on actually implementing it. That’s
  the best part.

  The 2015
  finalists have already been announced, here, but the top submissions
  will be announced at NXT City Night. The Chief Planner of Toronto, Jennifer
  Keesmaat, will be there, along with the
  competition’s very impressive jury.

  I think it’s
  important to keep in mind that a lot of what makes cities great often happens
  through citizen-led grassroots movements.

  The
  High Line in New York – which today attracts over 5 million visitors a year
  and is believed to be responsible for over $2.2 billion in new economic
  activity – was really the work of 2 friends who thought that preserving and
  repurposing the High Line was a cool idea. Which is why in 1999 they founded a
  non-profit called Friends of the High line. Amazing things happen when people and
  passion get involved.

  So I would
  encourage you to grab a ticket and join me at NXT City Night next week. Tickets are
  $25, but if you use the coupon code ATHISCITY,
  you’ll get $5 off your ticket 🙂

  The event is
  also taking place in a spectacular old warehouse building at 56 Maud Street
  (formerly St. Andrew’s Market Hall). That alone is reason enough to come. I’ve been inside before. Get your Instagram ready. But
  if that’s not enough, there’s also:

  • Open bar including Steam Whistle beer and Pillitteri Estate wine
  • Catering from Oyster Boy, Kanpai Snack Bar, Thoroughbred and many more
  • Art installations by Wayward Collective
  • Beats by Jesse Futerman and A Digital Needle
  • Local wares from GetFresh, Shopify, Spacing Store and Swipe

  I hope to see
  you there. Make sure to tweet at me
  if you’ll be there so we can connect in person.

  2015.09.17

• How to save 8 minutes on Toronto’s highways

  

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

  Three months ago when Toronto City Council voted
  not to remove the Gardiner Expressway
  East (which in
  my view was a mistake), it did so with a commitment to look at tolling
  options for both the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway (which in
  my view is a positive thing).

  Last week a preliminary report was released
  discussing some of those tolling options. If reading dry city reports is your thing,
  you can do that here.

  The Coles Notes version (CliffNotes for you
  Americans) is that a $3 flat toll on both the Gardiner and the DVP – the same
  cost as riding transit in this city – would be expected to reduce vehicles on the highways by 9% and 12%, as well reduce end-to-end travel times by 3 minutes and 5
  minutes, respectively. There’s obviously a lot more in the report, but these
  figures stood out for me.

  Given how monumental the
  3 minute delay was in the Gardiner East debates, it will be interesting to
  see whether people treat a 3 minute time savings in a similar way. I suspect
  they won’t. The cost will be the larger issue.

  I’ve been a
  vocal supporter of tolls and road pricing on this blog. One of the main reasons
  for that is because I view the demand for highways as being largely inelastic
  and therefore a potentially great source of transit funding.

  The discouraging part of the above report is
  that its primary goal is to explore tolls for the purpose of “offsetting
  capital, operating, and maintenance costs.” The primary goal is not to come up
  with sustainable sources of transit funding.

  Having these costs paid for by user-fees as
  opposed to general taxes is still a good thing in my view. But an even better thing
  would be to help fund mobility solutions that we know will be far more
  effective at getting people around this region as millions more people move here
  in the coming decades.

  The other discouraging part of the report is
  that near the end it explains that while the City of Toronto Act of 2006 allows
  for toll highways, they cannot be implemented without the Province passing
  regulation.

  It’s a reminder that our governance structures do
  not reflect the current urban reality of this country.

  2015.09.15

• The crisis of success

  I’m back and it feels great. I missed blogging the past 2 days. Though, there was something nice about not touching a computer all weekend.

  This morning I got up extra early and listened to a brief conversation between Aaron M. Renn of The Urbanophile and urbanist Richard Florida. The topic is New York’s “Great Reset”, and the impetus was a recent report (of the same name) that was put out by New York University.

  The conversation starts by talking about the resilience of New York City and its ability to accept and then reinvent itself in the wake of “creative destruction.” Destruction such as the financial crisis of 2008/2009. 

  But they then go on to talk about the challenges that New York, as well as many other cities, are now facing. Challenges brought about, not by failure, but by their tremendous success. Challenges such as income inequality and the dwindling middle class.

  The overarching premise is that we are still in the early stages of a new urban and creative economy. And that there’s lots of work to be done in order to figure out how to make it an inclusive one.

  There’s even mention of former Toronto mayor, Rob Ford.

  You can listen to the talk below. If you can’t see the embedded play button, click here.

  [soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/221338706″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

  2015.09.14