Not that anyone cares, but I’d just like to give an example of why Los Angeles (actually in this case, Santa Monica) is hopelessly lost when it comes to urban planning. Check out the video below. Yes, those are beautiful full-growth Ficus trees being cut down (along the entire street, although only a few are shown in the video below) … to widen the street so traffic can flow, flow, flow (or so the sidewalks don’t crack, or so that shop signs can be better seen, or… whatever lame reason they need to justify themselves). Yes, L.A. and Santa Monica are that stupid… and the saddest thing is that people actually think this is a good thing.
Voters in California faced two competing ballot initiatives on June 3 that will impact both the government’s use of eminent domain (i.e. taking private land for some other purpose) and rent control (restricting the allowable rent for some units).
Proposition 98: essentially restricts any government act that restricts the use of private property, including the elimination of rent control. This is the most “private-sector” friendly of the two ballot initiatives, prohibiting all public “takings”. The measure does, however, include a provision that rent-controlled units in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Monica would still be set by current rent-control measures when tenants leave, so it doesn’t get rid of rent control entirely.
Proposition 99: restricts government from taking owner-occupied housing, but retains rent control. This is the most “public-sector” friendly of the two. One unclear impact: whether, for example, rent control would still apply to a rented duplex unit where the owner lives in one of the units, since imposing rent-control on this unit would constitute a “taking” on an owner-occupied unit.
I believe that Prop 99 goes too far and Prop 98 doesn’t go far enough. That said, I recommend NO on 98 and YES on 99. Proposition 99 goes too far because it effectively means that *any* public action constitutes a “taking” and thus requires public compensation. For example, any laws that restrict building height could be seen as a “taking”. Don’t get me wrong, there are serious flaws to our current zoning practices; zoning reform is something that we desperately need. But in effect, Prop 99 means that *all* efforts to plan for future growth could be viewed as a “taking”. It could either bankrupt cities (requiring compensation for any planning efforts) or simply eliminate planning altogether. For this reason, I recommend voting NO on 98.
Despite Prop 98’s flaws, it began with good intentions — that is, to prevent people from losing their homes and businesses because of eminent domain abuse. I’ve previously commented on one such abuse in Hollywood. The landmark Kelo v. New London case — which many planners applauded — was not a just outcome to those whose homes were taken and given to a private developer. So we should pass measures that prevent such abuses — not necessarily on property rights grounds, but on justice grounds. But, by extending the measure to include any public actions, Prop 98 becomes an ideological tool that would make it impossible to plan our cities at all. Prop 99, on the other hand, acknowledges the injustice of losing one’s own home to eminent domain abuse. Where it doesn’t go far enough is in protecting small businesses from losing their property, and thus, their livelihood, as was the case in the Hollywood case. So while it doesn’t go far enough, it begins to demarcate the limits of eminent domain, without doing harm, so we recommend voting YES on 99.
The above should not be taken as an endorsement of current rent control policies, however. I’m a strong advocate for affordable housing, and rent control does have a short-term role to play to prevent people from being displaced. But it is a stop-gas measure, at best. It is not a long-term solution to the problem of housing affordability. And while those of us who advocate for a more just society often see landlords as “anonymous greedy corporations”, the reality is, most landlords (at least in L.A.) are actually small businesses or owner-occupied homeowners who rent out a second duplex unit. So planners should not be lulled into believing that the clumsy tool we currently have (rent control) is the only, or even the best, means of achieving affordable housing. It is not.
Other measures — inclusionary zoning and a more robust Section 8 voucher program, in particular — are more effective, particularly in L.A. Why? In L.A., only units built before 1978 are controlled. Thus, older units — those in most need of repair — are rent-controlled in perpetuity. At a certain point, the costs of upkeep outweigh the income generated by the controlled rents. So many landlords let them fall into disrepair or redevelop it — tearing down the building in favor of new condos, which are market-rate (note that rent control does not protect tenants from the landlord removing the units from the rental market through demolition or condo-conversion). This, of course, has the opposite effect as intended (which is to ensure a supply a rent-controlled apartments). Moreover, rent control applies to the unit (not the tenant) without any controls over *who* gets the unit (i.e. whether they need affordable housing or not). Indeed, many who could afford market rents take rent-controlled units that should otherwise be available to those who cannot. So, rent control is a very clumsy tool to achieve what we want — a renewable supply of affordable housing for those who need it.
Inclusionary zoning is a better approach. Here, a dedicated portion (10-20% of units) of allnew projects of a certain size (say, more than 9 units) in all areas of the city are restricted to those earning less than 80% of median area income (moderate income), 50% (low-income), or 30% (very low income) for a set period of time (50 years). In exchange, developers get regulatory incentives (more units though not necessarily more bulk; reduced parking; faster approvals) to offset their additional costs of building affordable units (note: an 800-sf units costs about $250,000 to build, but can only be sold for about $100,000, thus developers lose $150,000 on each affordable unit). But it is very controversial, because most homeowners don’t want multi-family housing of any kind, let alone those with “poor people”, in their neighborhoods. Politicians to date have acquiesced to join the protests against inclusionary zoning (or density bonuses). Most planners are double-bound in that they support both affordable housing and bottom-up planning. So far, buttom-up planning has won.
Likewise, section 8 vouchers, unlike rent control, are tied to the person — if you can’t afford market rent, the voucher will make up the difference (up to certain limits). People have more choice (although we need better legislation to ensure landlords don’t discriminate against voucher holders). The point here is that planners should not think that rent control is the answer. We need it to protect mass displacement, and to at least preserve the limited supply we have, but more often than not, these units are pretty grim because of the built-in disincentives to make reinvestments in those properties.
So, while Prop 99 is the better start to curb eminent domain abuse, it should not be taken to mean support for rent control as the sum total of our affordable housing strategy. We still have work to do to ensure we have a supply of affordable housing for those who cannot afford market rents.
On occasion of it being Earth Day, I thought a post on urban planning was in order, specifically regarding policies in Los Angeles (one of the least sustainable cities I know). I’ve never understood why L.A. can’t accommodate both the car and build mass transit. It isn’t either/or, as most Angelinos like to believe. Some people want to drive, others prefer to take transit (providing it is reliable, safe, and clean). Why limit choice by forcing people to drive?
But here’s what most people in L.A. don’t understand: current L.A. parking regulations don’t reflect reality, even in L.A. New market condos require 2.25 parking spaces per unit (or, in some cases, 2.5 spaces or even 2.75 spaces in special districts), regardless of the size of the unit. That literally means that they expect every single household to have 2 cars and every other household to have someone over for dinner every other night (0.25 guest spaces). Since this doesn’t reflect reality, what we get are fewer housing units and a lot of expensive empty parking spaces in new buildings.
In most cases, parking requirements in L.A. — not density — is what limits how many units of housing can be built. You simply cannot park the required number of cars on the site, so you build fewer units than is allowed. In many cases, you can only build about 75% of the number of units allowed by zoning. We are literally choosing to house cars over people, because the more cars you house, the less housing units you get. What’s worse: because it costs so much money and space to build the required parking (and because they can’t get the number of units allowed on the site), developers are forced to build bigger units, which means there are few small (and thus more affordable) market-rate units available. That L.A. hasn’t met its housing demand in over a decade is one symptom of the problem (even now, with prices falling due to the mortgage meltdown, there still is more demand than supply).
But here’s the rub: if you look at the number of cars vs. the number of housing units in L.A., you find that on average, there are about 1.4 cars per unit (which is to say that about half of households have 1 car and half have 2 cars, and a few even have none!). Adding 0.25 guest spaces per unit and the actual number of spaces required per unit in L.A. is 1.65. Now, let’s be clear: 1.65 spaces per unit is a very high number. In New York City, by comparison, there are 1.7 million registered vehicles for 3.4 million housing units — a ratio of 0.50 per unit — 3.3 times fewer than the 1.65 required in L.A. So, indeed, L.A. is a driving city. But we need only 1.65, not 2.25.
Think about it, we could reduce the parking standard by over 25% — from 2.25 to 1.65 parking spaces per unit and still accommodate all the cars required in L.A.; this would allow us to build over 25% more housing units without even changing the density (since in many cases, as I said above, you can only build about 75% of the allowable units).
Now imagine if we required all projects throughout the city (over a certain size, let’s say 10+ units) to set aside 10% of the units as affordable. It’s a win-win for everyone. We accommodate cars at the ratio required for L.A. (1.65 spaces per unit), developers get over 15% more market units and we institute a mechanism to generate 10% affordable units for every new project in the city. All it takes is leadership.
Every now and then, I read an article that infuriates me so much that I have to challenge it. An article in this morning’s L.A. Times by Sharon Bernstein entitled “Southern California is becoming a tight fit” is such an article; sadly, it’s typical of what happens in L.A.
The article is a not-so-covered critique of Southern California’s shift towards more urban (and more sustainable) mode of living — a trend that Bernstein laments in her nostalgic loss of the good ol’ days when L.A. was a white, Protestant Eden (Bernstein notes that “the region’s history [was] as a haven for people who moved west to escape the cramped apartments of their metropolitan hometowns”). What’s the problem? To Bernstein and her NIMBY neighbor friends to whom she so frequently gives a voice, the problem is the usual suspects: “overcrowding” and of course, traffic. As Bernstein warns: “the shift has implications for infrastructure, congestion, schools and even the style of neighborhoods, as apartments encroach on single-family enclaves.” (Note: apartments aren’t encroaching on single-family areas, because R1 zoning precisely protects single-family houses from being replaced by multi-family apartments).
Bernstein proceeds to claim that “top planners say that if cities and counties are not careful about where they place these high-density projects, the development could overcrowd schools, burden water, sewer and power systems and make traffic worse.” Yet, apparently, she could find no reputable physical planners (from the city or reputable academics, not even the ubiquitous sprawl-lover Joel Kotkin…) to back up her claims, instead relying on the testimony of her Neighborhood Council and Homeowner Association friends (whose raison d’etre is to maintain the status quo) to substantiate her claims. To be fair, she does quote Mark Pisano (head of SCAG), but he more a bureaucrat than planner, as evidenced by his misinformed claims that the City has allowed development in areas without amenities (like public transportation); this is despite the fact virtually all of L.A.’s new high density development is occurring along the arterial boulevards and around transit stops. (And by the way, there are really only two ways to build transit: subsidize it until the density arrives or build the density that creates the demand for transit. And guess what? L.A. has tried the former and people don’t want to subsidize it, so we’re on to Plan B, build the density first).
“What we have is a city in crisis,” said Ellen Vukovich, a board member of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. “I don’t know how long the homeowners are going to be able to stem the tide.” (Note: the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association, SOHA, recently appealed on spurious grounds — and lost — a decision by City Planning for a mixed-use development along Ventura Boulevard, a project that had already been reduced from 118 to 88 units. Their mission, it seems, is to block all development on their ‘turf’. A casual search reveals SOHA has appealed numerous projects and often threatens litigation to gets its way. I hate to be the bearer of bad news by the Sherman Oaks “neighborhood” is home to 60,000 people, hardly “a village” as they like to believe).
And more: “We’re just trying very hard to preserve some semblance of human-scale life here,” said Barbara Burke, who is a vice president of the Studio City Neighborhood Council but who said she was speaking as a homeowner. “The congestion is huge.” (Note: the high limit along most of Ventura Boulevard — covered by L.A.’s “1VL” height district — is a whopping 45 feet i.e. 5 stories).
But the crux of the matter is revealed at the end of the article: “Vukovich, of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., said plenty of people still want to live in quiet single-family neighborhoods and worry that their ability to do so will be reduced as more condos are built.”
Let me translate that for you: because a few rich white people don’t want to be inconvenienced by traffic congestion, they feel it is their right to deny less well-off people a roof over their head. And that’s what this really comes down to: the inconvenience of a few who scream loudly vs. whether or not the workers of this city have a roof over their head. Apparently, it is OK for rich people to hire Latinos for minimum wage, and have them take a bus for two hours from East L.A. (the only place they can afford, given that L.A. hasn’t met its annual housing demand for 15+ years) to the Westside and South Valley, as long as they go back to the “other” side at the end of the day. People like Vukovich and Burke want you to believe that we actually have a choice here — that we can simply choose to block housing and people will just go away. Unless we build a wall around L.A., you have two choices: to house the people that are here, or not. Apparently the problem isn’t really overcrowding — that’s precisely what the Vukovichs and Burkes of the world have already created by blocking housing — they are OK with it over there (East L.A.), they just don’t want multi-family housing on their turf, because, good golly, it might take them an extra two minutes to drive to Starbucks. Only in a city as decadent as L.A. could you get away with allowing the inconvenience of a few trump the housing need of many. And you know what’s the sad part? These people see themselves as progressive. Think again, people.
An article in the L.A. Times this morning tells us that Southern California is expected to grow from 19.5 million people in 2000 to 31.6 million in 2050. The article speaks to native South Landers fixation with traffic congestion. People here in SoCal believe that building more roads and widening or decking existing ones will “solve” the traffic problems. They are wrong. More roads = more cars = more traffic. Even building more mass transit (commuter rail, bus rapid transit, light rail, subways) won’t even begin to make a dent.
I would argue that dealing with traffic, at least initially, has nothing to do with transportation. In fact, give the narrow-minded transportation planners the chance (narrow-minded in that their singular goal is not to build great cities, but rather to simply move cars around), and we’ll make matters worse. It’s the land use pattern, stupid. The first step is to change the way we build. So much of Southern California was built upon the premise that everyone should have their 1/4-acre of paradise (complete with detached house, 2 cars and a pool), even if the state had to subsidize the infrastructure and negative impacts (to our health and the environment) to realize that goal.
An untested theory of segregating land use — in the name of “modernization” — was put into practice. So, we created separate zones for sleeping, for working, for making things, for playing, for shopping, etc. If you think about it, it’s a ridiculous theory. Obviously, if every individual has to drive from place to place, for free no less (and assuming they have the means to afford personal transportation), to do everything they need to do throughout the day, obviously the theory of unlimited mobility will quickly turn into the reality of immobility (congestion). And so it is today in Southern California. Indeed, Southern California has the dubious honor of being home to some of the most congested freeways in the U.S.
The first step is clear — throw away the failed theory that land uses should be segregated. To do so, we must first abandon the myth that cities are static things that never change. When people talk of “protecting” their neighborhood, they mean freezing it in time. Impossible. Cities are in constant flux, responding to social, economic and political forces. People needn’t fear change. Change isn’t bad if it brings better outcomes for everyone.
Contrary to popular belief, most traffic is actually generated by convenience trips, not work trips. Why should I have to drive to get a quart of milk? To drop off the kids? To pick up my dry-cleaning? To go for a walk in the park? And so on. So, the first thing we need to do is allow (but not mandate) mixes of uses in all development. Developers aren’t suicidal — they aren’t going to put in retail uses where there is no demand for it. It is a fallacy to think that good neighborhoods are made up of only single family detached houses.
Good neighborhoods have conveniences — corner stores, restaurants, coffee shops, banks, grocery stores, parks, libraries, etc. It ain’t convenient if you have to drive for such conveniences. Changing land use patterns to allow for good neighborhoods (as opposed to land-segregated neighborhoods) will require an attitude adjustment to be sure. People must recognize and reverse the racism and class-ism that currently motivates their efforts to deny lower- and middle-income people a right to housing (which is what happens when you prohibit multi-family housing across most of the landscape). Good neighborhoods have a range of housing options, from single family detached houses, townhouses, 5-to-6 story apartment buildings alike.
It all starts with housing. Affluent Southern Californians must acknowledge the massive housing shortage that is caused by the desire to “protect” their neighborhoods from multi-family housing. When housing is in such short supply, competition for the few units that are available becomes fierce. Prices soar. People then must seek lower-cost alternatives further away (and they are lower-cost because the public policy is to subsidize that form of development). And traffic problems accelerate. Taxpayers need to demand better return on investment — why should we pay for all the infrastructure (roads, sewers, schools, light standards, etc) for 4 households per acre when the same infrastructure could supply 80 households per acre? Is it any wonder that California municipalities are, by and large, bankrupt?
So what happens when you allow more compact, more mixed-use development? Initially, traffic gets worse before it gets better, because it takes time for all those conveniences to infill to the point where it is more convenient to walk to a corner store than to drive to the mini-mall. But as neighborhoods become rich mixes of uses, with a range of housing options for everyone, convenience trips decrease. And the conversation shifts from simply moving people around the city, to the things that really matter — how to improve our schools, keep our streets safe, make better communities. And with a 60% increase in population expected over the next 40 years or so, it’s time that Southern Californians change their thinking. If they don’t, they will suffer the consequences. And they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Yesterday, arguing that Canada’s innovation and commercialization performance if dismal (citing last month’s Conference Board report), Pierre Rivard made a pitch to create a CleanTech district on Toronto’s Portlands. See Wikipedia’s entry for CleanTech for an overview, but essentially, CleanTech focuses on eco-efficient production techniques, renewable energy, green technology, and sustainable business.
I agree that Canada needs to do more to encourage entrepreneurialism and innovation — particularly in taking advantage of the opportunities that sustainable development affords us. Unfortunately, Rivard’s thinking reflects outdated mid-twentieth century thinking vis-a-vis segregation of land uses, rather than more current ideas of how to build cities and attract investment. I have been involved with three projects that each makes me skeptical of creating a special “CleanTech District” on Toronto’s waterfront.
In 2003, I taught an urban design studio at MIT that focused on the Toronto Portlands — precisely the area that Pierre is talking about. The problem with the Portlands is that it has been seen for, oh about 30 years, as a clean slate for the latest political pet project (Olympics, Expo, Studio/Media District, and now, apparently, a CleanTech district). The land is mostly publicly owned, but split across municipal, provincial and federal levels. So it’s a never-ending political football. Indeed, virtually nothing has happened in the four years since we did the studio. Given than Toronto is expected to receive about a million more people by 2031, it is clear that Toronto needs to build new neighborhoods. If we want to practice what we preach about sustainable development, we need to build more compactly with higher densities (high enough to support transit and street retail).
That doesn’t mean we need high-rises, though. Mid-rise housing built to the street with gardens in behind provides as much density as high-rises (because high-rises need to be set well back from the street). Believe it or not, a project with three 30-story towers set back from the street (covering 10% of the block) has the same density as 6-story buildings that are built to the street (with 50% private open space on the inside of the block). Both have a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 3 (i.e. 3 times as much floor space as land area). So density doesn’t mean high-rises.
In our studio, we proposed several new mixed-use neighborhoods in the Portlands that would accommodate about 100,000 people, public spaces, schools, churches, etc and yes, jobs. That is, we should build city — that is, accommodate the full range of activities that makes cities. We explicitly rejected single-use districts that target one particular industry. I’m happy to have CleanTech in the Port, but the idea that it needs to be concentrated in one particular zone of one city is overly simplistic and would create a missed opportunity to build a real extension of the city.
I was also involved with a project with University of Cambridge (UK) that looked at the relationship between innovation and built form. Basically, the university wanted to know how it should grow, attract creative talent and turn those ideas into commercial products. They wanted to know what kind of built form would be best suited to accommodate that growth going forward. We looked at the Silicon Valley model (corporate office parks), but concluded that Silicon Valley was successful not because of the kind of physical environment, but rather in spite of it. We looked at more recent examples that suggested, to simplify things, that innovation didn’t happen in the cubicles, but rather over coffee in a cafe or other informal places. This led us to conclude that the built environment should be quite urban, with lots of informal places to meet, and be flexible enough to change over time. This suggested that the new creative economy would depend not on the 1980s corporate campus model but rather centrally located, vibrant urban environments.
Finally, I also taught a studio in which we worked with Electronic Arts (EA) — the gaming company; they had just chosen Montreal as the site of their new east coast corporate HQ precisely because it was such a nexus for creative talent. They argued that their workers — who were 28 years old on average — wanted to live and work in an urban setting. So came up with an urban design plan that integrated EA into a new urban landscape just south of the downtown and west of Old Montreal (where a lot of tech companies had located). Rather than a closed “campus”, EA would be very much a part of the urban streetscape. Again, it wasn’t a singular “tech” district, but one which had lots of cafes, restaurants, bars, bookstores, and housing.
The basic message is this: don’t sacrifice opportunities to make real city in an effort to attract one single use. These sterile single-use districts do not encourage innovation. On the contrary, mixed-use urban places with opportunities for informal conversation are more likely to attract creative talent and generate innovative ideas. So yes, let’s attract CleanTech to Toronto, but seek strategic sites throughout the city, rather than fall back to an outdated model of sterile single-use “districts”.
It is surely a sign of the times that we subsidize driving while at the same time our public transit systems are so starved for cash. North Americans believe that it is a god-given right to have free access to roads. It is not. It’s time for cities like Los Angeles and Toronto to have the political leadership to do the right thing, even if it is unpopular.
In Toronto, you pay for the greater convenience of having less congestion on the privately-run Highway 407 (to avoid the chronically congested 401). But while the 407 tolls are profit for a private company, tolls on public roads would be reinvested in the transportation system — a portion could be set aside into a fund that is reinvested (to build a pool of funds for the long-term), a portion could be set aside for immediate maintenance of the roads, a portion could be set aside for new capital public transit projects, and a portion could be set aside to pay for the impacts of highway use (smog, CO2, asthma treatment, etc). It’s good public policy.
Traditional opposition to road tolling comes from the right who see it as another tax grab by big government. But free-market proponents argue road tolls is an effective means of properly accounting for the true impact of their use. Many on the left also oppose road tolls because they believe that we’ll end up pricing the poor off of roads, so that highways will become the exclusive domain of the rich. Moreover, since housing on the urban periphery is typically lower than in the central city (at least in L.A. and T.O.), many lower-income households live relatively far out and have no choice but to drive (because there isn’t effective transit in the periphery). But part of the reason why housing on the periphery is cheaper is precisely because municipalities don’t have to pay for public transit infrastructure — transportation (in the form of highways) is paid for by higher levels of government, subsidized to the benefit of tract housing developers. And it isn’t just transportation that is subsidized. When you build at low densities, fewer households are using the same amount of other forms of infrastructure — sewers, schools, street lights, surface streets, and so on. While an acre of urban land might serve 80 units, peripheral housing might serve only 4 units (i.e. a house on a 1/4-acre lot = 4 dwellings per acre) — 20 times less. I’m not opposed to everyone having a single family detached house. But the cost of that pattern of development is not being paid by those who choose it. We could charge higher impact fees (which will be passed along to the consumer). But we can also charge directly for the use of road infrastructure.
We all pay for a certain amount of infrastructure (of all kinds) whether we use it or not — and we do so because we cannot provide it for ourselves as individuals more effectively. But this base level funding doesn’t cover all the costs. In the case of highways, who pays for the lost hours due to congestion? Who pays for pollution? and the associated health impacts? Right now, nobody (or, if anyone, the government, which again means the cost of low-density, auto-dependent development is being borne by everyone). I believe that if you use it, you should pay for it. Clearly, those who use L.A.’s Metro of the TTC in Toronto pay every time they step on board. Why shouldn’t we expect the same for highway users?
Unlike many public policies that are politically expedient, but poor on performance, road tolling delivers results, and can promote change. If it suddenly costs you something to use the highways, maybe you will need to partner up with a buddy and carpool. Maybe you’ll buy a more fuel efficient car to offset the toll costs. Maybe you will give public transit a try. If its not available, maybe you’ll demand it. And if you have the means, maybe you’ll decide that spending dollars of gas and tolls would be better spent on a higher mortgage (thus building equity instead) on a house that is closer to your work or more centrally located (where you can avoid highways and maybe even use transit). Do the math: if you drive 60 miles from home to work and back (120 miles per day), 22 days/month at 20 miles/gallon and $3.50/gallon, that’s $462 per month in gas. A $5 toll each way for 22 days adds another $220/month. That’s $682/month. How much more could you have spent on your house to live in more central (non-highway dependent) location? At 7% interest for a 30-year loan, that extra $682 translates into $100,000 in house value. Wouldn’t that be a better investment that burning through gas and toll charges every month?
Our taxes help pay for roads, transit and everything else. So the notion that “I’ve already paid for the roads with my taxes” (and thus should not have to pay a toll) is no more valid than a transit user saying “I’ve already paid for the system with my taxes” (and thus should not have to pay for a ticket). The cost of transportation isn’t free. It’s high time that cities like Los Angeles and Toronto recognize this and implement highway tolls.
Every city inevitably confronts the often conflicting concerns of local communities with the broader public interests of a region. Toronto is no exception — we saw this with the St. Clair streetcar project, we’re seeing it along the avenues, where the city wants to allow more development, and we’re seeing in the Portlands and waterfront, where industrial workers are fighting for their jobs. How we deal with these local/regional conflicts reflects on all of us. No local community should bear the burden of regional concerns. But neither should local concerns prevent us from tackling regional problems. Instead of succumbing to either exclusively, we must find solutions that balance both. It’s more difficult and perhaps more costly, but it must be done to strengthen both local communities and the region as a whole.
One of most obvious local/regional conflicts in Toronto is Blue-22, the proposed rail link between Pearson airport, the Dundas GO station and Union Station (“22″ being the number of minutes it takes from end to end). But there are two big problems: 1) the rail line runs through Weston, home to the province’s second poorest riding, which only has grade-level crossings. Officials say increased rail traffic (an extra 140 trains per day, running at 100km/h instead of the current 60km/h, which would also increase noise and air pollution) necessitate closing those streets, thus splitting Weston in two; and 2) the initial project only connects Pearson to downtown, and not to other key population and employment centres, such as North York and Mississauga.
Regional Benefits
Blue-22 provides many potential regional benefits, but only if the above problems can be solved. Before addressing these problems, it might be useful to review some of Blue-22’s benefits. First, Blue-22 would reduce car traffic in and around the 401/427 interchange, and along the 427 and Gardiner Expressway. Many also argue that a Pearson-Downtown rail link makes the Island Airport redundant (not every agrees, of course), allowing it to be redeveloped into a public amenity for the city.
Given that the vast majority of traffic on the Gardiner is not through-traffic, many also argue that Blue-22 could facilitate taking down the Gardiner (at least through the Central Waterfront) — again, a controversial plan. With the Gardiner removed (replaced by Lake Shore Boulevard), proponents argue that we can finally lay new streets across the vast wasteland between Front Street and Queen’s Quay, build new neighborhoods, gain new public amenities, and connect the waterfront with the city (particularly if the Island Airport is redeveloped, which would link the Islands directly to the city). This would be strengthened by building over the tracks between Spadina and Yonge (for example, with a new central park).
The tax revenue that the city would gain by turning this wasteland into real neighborhoods would be enormous. If done right — with a mix of residential (including affordable housing), commercial and retail in relatively small blocks that are developed not by one developer at once, but by many over time — there is something for everyone to gain. That extra revenue could put the financially troubled city back on its feet. This would also make the Portlands neighborhoods more viable. For a region that is facing the prospect of a near doubling in population over the next 40 years, these new urban neighborhoods are critical.
What many Torontonians also don’t realize is that Pearson is the gateway for people not only in Toronto, but a vast part of Ontario. If you live in Belleville, you pretty much have to use Pearson; connecting Pearson to Union Station also means connecting much of Eastern Ontario to Pearson, instead of having to drive all the way to Toronto, then navigate 401 gridlock. This would surely ease traffic along the 401 as well. It also opens up the possibility of using trains for Pearson cargo, lessening the impact of trucks on the 401. There are many other benefits (beyond the obvious conveniences for tourists and business travelers), but you get the idea. Not everyone agrees with them, but they are real — collectively, they would give the city a much-needed financial boost, increase quality of life for its residents, create new public amenities, ease gridlock, and reduce our impact on the environment.
Solutions Despite its many regional benefits, no single neighborhood should be sacrificed for the broader public good. Surely we learned our lesson from Jane Jacobs and stopping the Spadina Expressway which would have destroyed the Annex. Without changes, Blue-22 could be the Spadina Expressway of our time. Weston residents are right. Splitting the neighborhood in two is unacceptable. The extra noise and air pollution is unacceptable. Likewise, we have to recognize that Toronto is a polycentric city — for example, as many people work in North York and Mississauga as do downtown. Clearly, Blue-22 must be part of a broader long-term transit initiative.
Problem: street closures in Weston Solution: grade-separate the crossings by lowering the tracks. A more radical solution is to cover the tracks completely through Weston (a.k.a. the subway option), but the extra benefits of this probably don’t warrant the additional cost. Trenching would require a major investment since the tracks would have to slope between Eglinton and Kipling, which means other adjustments in between (including how the tracks span the Humber River). Costly, yes, but necessary.
Problem: noise pollution in Weston Solution: line the trench with sound-absorbing panels and retrofit every building within a block of the tracks with new tripled-glazed windows. Believe me, with triple-glazed windows (like the ones I have in my place), you hear nothing. Literally, nothing. And, as a bonus, your energy bills go down.
Problem: air pollution in Weston
Solution: use electric trains instead of noisy and dirty diesel trains. While significantly more expensive, electric trains are more environmentally responsible. The short-term cost will pay off in the long run.
Problem: no service to other areas. Solution 3: institute phases 2 and 3 that Pearson eastward and westward along a GO ring route. It must be clear that the Pearson-Union Station link is just the first phase. This extends well beyond simply connecting downtown with Pearson. It must be seen as a means of finally building the much-needed ring line for the GO Train network. In its present form, the GO network treats Toronto as a monocentric city — all lines lead to Union Station, which doesn’t reflect reality. It’s clear that, as a polycentric city, Toronto needs a ring line that could, for example, connect Oakville, Mississauga, Bramalea, North York, Scarborough and Pickering. That way you don’t have to travel to Union Station to use GO. With Toronto expected to nearly double in population by 2050, we need to starting building the infrastructure that we will need. Clearly, if traffic congestion is bad now, it will only get worse.
The Blue-22 plan needs significant changes if it is to balance local and regional concerns. The residents in Weston (including the Weston Community Coalition), the various provincial agencies (Ministry of Environment, for example), GO, and the Consortium must work together to find common ground; each side must compromise. Neither local nor regional concerns can dominate; both must be balanced. For if this balance cannot be struck, then everyone loses.
Born and raised in Ontario, Gregory D. Morrow was most recently Lecturer in Urban Studies & Planning at MIT and is currently completing his PhD in Urban Planning at UCLA. He holds professional degrees in architecture, urban design, and city planning, and has a forthcoming book on the history of urban planning in Toronto. He is also founder of democraticSPACE.com, one of Canada’s leading websites for political news and analysis.
Many people are worried about the continued rise of condos in Toronto and the lack of rental units being built. I stumbled across this thread at Babble, which links to a couple of articles here and here. Here’s my response:
The problem is not condo ownership (many of which are themselves rented out, which makes the condo/rental argument a bit artificial). The issue is affordability and diversity (and by diversity here I mean a mix of incomes including very low incomes, and social diversity of all kinds). Vaughn worries that when the 20- and 30-somethings with no kids get older, combined with a dip in the next generation’s demographics, we’ll see people leave downtown. So he wants to keep people downtown. Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn’t address the underlying problem that the market will supply what is a) most in demand, and b) most profitable. Certainly there is a demand for more affordable housing, but it cannot be made affordably given some of Toronto antiquated zoning by-laws. These same zoning requirements are what encourage large-scale whole-block development, at the expense of mid-rise urban infill (which I would argue is more sustainable — it provides density without towers, and doesn’t require wholesale demolition of entire blocks, which is at the root of gentrification). Unfortunately, most progressive people aren’t critical of zoning — they have been lead to believe that zoning protects the little guy, when the evidence suggests that it really helps a) those with the power, money and time to resist development (i.e. NIMBYs) and b) those with power, money and time to navigate the time-consuming and expensive approvals process. Smarter regulations are necessary to create the affordability and diversity that we want.
Let me give you an example of the kind of zoning requirements that encourage the development of large-scale towers. Toronto remains wedded to the idea that any building on any street must step back after 6 stories (until it gets to the centre of the block, in which case it can go very tall). That may well be a good idea on small streets, but it’s foolish on wide streets, which are most often the major transportation corridors (density should be greater along these routes, plus the width of the street requires taller buildings for it to create a sense of space). The consequence of this is that it is impossible to do mid-rise housing economically — the more expensive top units in 8-12 story mid-rise buildings get chopped away at each floor it goes up due to the stepback requirement. These are the pricey units that allow developers to have more affordable units on lower levels. So if you chop them off, you don’t get the more affordable units. And this is true whether they are co-owned (i.e. condo) or rental.
Secondly, instead of allowing buildings to negotiate agreements with adjacent office buildings to share garage space, Toronto requires that all building provide enough parking on site. Given the current parking requirements, this means that the only way to provide the necessary on-site parking is to dig deeper into the earth. If so, then you have to build bigger to justify the cost of deep foundations and garages. But because heights are constrained for mid-rises, it leads developers to assemble the whole block (buying out cheaper buildings), tear everything down and build towers.
These are just a couple examples. Developers are of course motivated by profit, but then again most of us who earn a wage are too. So there’s no revelation there. What we need to do is ensure that our regulations aren’t actually preventing us from building more sustainable kinds of housing. If we reform our zoning to allow more sustainable practices (which also happen to allow developers to make more money!), then we can start asking developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units (what many call “inclusionary zoning”). And you can do this where there is great demand — you see this in progressive U.S. cities like Cambridge MA, Santa Monica CA, San Fran CA. Do that and you start to address the underlying problems that condos symbolize — affordability and diversity.
Details about Harvard professor Robert Putnam’s (of Bowling Alone fame) mega-study on civic engagement are beginning to trickle out — and spun — by conservatives (for example, see John Lloyd’s piece in the Financial Times “Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity” and Steve Sailer’s subsequent article in the American Conservative entitled “Fragmented Future”). According to Lloyd and Sailer, the study concludes that diversity is bad for civic engagement — an indictment of multiculturalism and diversity, they say. Putnam himself has not come to that conclusion, and in fact, was angered by the way Lloyd spun his findings, calling the FT article “by two degrees of magnitude, the worst experience I have ever had with the media.” In particular, Lloyd and Sailer point to L.A. — as Lloyd says “Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history.’” I’ve never been entirely sold on Putnam’s negative view that social capital is in decline. Certainly, small towns are more likely to know each other’s neighbors and lend a helping hand than in big cities, and yes, we are witnessing increased urbanization. But city folks have strong social networks too. But you need to look more closely at the neighborhood level — not all neighborhoods are the same; some are quite active, and some are not. In other cases, urban social networks span across geography to “communities of interest”.
I would disagree that L.A. has low social capital. In fact, some of the strongest citizen-led movements were born in L.A. — I’m thinking here of the Bus Riders Union, Justice 4 Janitors, and LANE (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy). But that civic engagement was born out of a struggle for social justice — a desire to overcome what many saw as systemic oppression. Does this kind of civic action constitute social capital? I would say yes. Putnam’s conclusion illustrates what happens when you don’t think spatially. One of the more serious flaws of Putnam’s work is its lack of geographic specificity. It’s impossible to treat “Los Angeles” as a whole, because it exists as a series of radically different neighborhoods (some of which are separate municipalities). If you treat L.A. as a whole, you may well conclude that there is low civic engagement — that’s because L.A. is America’s most economically- (and ethnically-) segregated city. My sense is that there is low civic engagement in homogeneous communities because a) they are either so rich or b) they are so poor that neither have the time nor inclination to self-organize. My experience is that diverse neighborhoods in L.A., however, are well-organized and among the most socially active — sadly, the motivation of which, however is a struggle to overcome deep poverty.
So you might find low civic engagement in both the very rich Westside (except if you characterize NIMBYism as civic engagement!) and the very poor East L.A. The Westside (Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades) is almost entirely white, while East L.A. is almost entirely Latino. There is scant poverty on the Westside, but at least one-third of East LAers live in poverty. You can see this by comparing difference Zip Codes:
Not Diverse/White: 90210 (Beverly Hills) — 4.9% Latino, 1.3% Black, 4.8% Asian 90077 (Bel Air) — 4.0% Latino, 1.6% Black, 6.7% Asian 90049 (Brentwood) — 4.6% Latino, 1.2% Black, 6.8% Asian 90272 (Pacific Palisades) — 3.6% Latino, 0.8% Black, 4.5% Asian
Not Diverse/Latino: 90023 (East L.A) — 97.8% Latino, 0.4% Black, 0.7% Asian 90063 (East L.A.) — 96.8% Latino, 0.5% Black, 1.2% Asian 90022 (East L.A.) — 96.3% Latino, 0.5% Black, 0.7% Asian 90033 (East L.A.) — 92.3% Latino, 1.5% Black, 3.6% Asian
So, I wouldn’t expect a lot of civic engagement in these zip codes. Obviously, research would have to be conducted to study this, but it’s my sense that diverse areas have higher civic engagement (note: that doesn’t mean that diverse neighborhoods aren’t poor, however — many are; about the only non-poor L.A. areas are areas that are mostly white). Consider the following Zip codes:
Diverse/Mixed: 90012 (Chinatown) — 30.1% Latino, 16.8% Black, 31.9% Asian 90013 (Skid Row) — 26.0% Latino, 37.9% Black, 13.6% Asian 90014 (Fashion District) — 25.3% Latino, 28.6% Black, 26.7% Asian 90007 (Pico Union) — 58.2% Latino, 12.8% Black, 10.7% Asian
If Putnam’s unit of analysis was more geographically fine-tuned (rather than treating L.A. as a whole), I think you would reach a different, in fact, opposite conclusion — that diverse neighborhoods are, in fact, very socially active places (but unfortunately for L.A., what motivates social action is often the challenge of overcoming deep poverty). If diverse places are the place that are most socially active, it’s hard to make the argument that diversity is bad for civic engagement.
