tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41539858048328110482024-03-18T16:22:11.415-04:00Urban kchozeJust a blog about urban and transport issues. It started as an English translation of my French-language blog "kchoze urbaine", though now I'm primarily writing in English to reach a wider audience. Why the name? "Chose urbaine" in French means literally "urban thing". Why "kchoze" instead of "chose"? Because, as says Linkara, poor literacy is kewl.
I'm a traffic engineer (the irony!) from Québec, I have no urbanist formation, this is only my musings and my opinions.simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-47067310669946204482020-01-16T02:18:00.000-05:002020-05-24T16:10:11.941-04:00The utility of directly regulating Floor Area Ratio<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my last post on the obesity of midrise apartments, I mentioned that one possible solution to what I perceive as a problem is to restrict FAR (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_area_ratio">Floor-Area Ratio</a>) tighter and loosen setback and height limits so that buildings' density be more limited by FAR regulations than geometric regulations. I got a bit of pushback on Twitter for that, and it's quite understandable, as it seems unintuitive and even counter-productive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unintuitive because whatever we might think of them, setback regulations and height limits can be justified, convincingly or not, by the idea of externalities. Buildings that are too high or too close to property limits are viewed as intruding visually (if nothing else) on neighboring properties, arguably justifying regulations to reduce these impacts on other properties or on the street. FAR regulations don't really have this argument though, not in a direct way anyway.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Counter-productive because, well, FAR is the best metric for built density. So by arguing for stricter FAR regulation, that means a restriction of density... when I've been arguing (and still do) for more density usually. Isn't that the opposite of what we should want?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, give me some time and I'll explain why I'm arguing for this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The role of FAR in determining land value</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One thing that's important to understand is that <b>URBAN LAND HAS LITTLE TO NO VALUE IN ITSELF</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But urban lots are very valuable, so how can I say that?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Simple. Urban land has no value, <b>it is the building allowance tied to that lot that has value</b>. Developers buy land in order to build valuable buildings on them and reselling them. Speculators buy land they think is underpriced or will increase in value to sell to a developer down the line. So urban land's value is ultimately determined by what developers are willing to pay for it, and what is a developer willing to pay for a lot?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's essentially<b> three variables that help determine what a developer will be ready to pay for an urban lot.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li><b>The market value of a square meter of floor area in the neighborhood (P)</b></li>
<li><b>The construction cost of building that square meter of floor area (C)</b></li>
<li><b>The amount of square meters of floor area that the developer can build on that lot (A)</b></li>
</ol>
<b> </b>So you can sum up the value of an urban lot, regardless of its actual size, by the formula:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>LOT VALUE </b><b><code>≤</code> (P-C)A</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Okay, profit margin should be included there as well, but for simplicity's sake, let's set it aside since it would only complicate explanations and anyway, it's pretty much a constant.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You'll notice I put "less than or equal to" in there rather than an equal sign. That's because lot value can be less than the formula, if speculators face a lot of competition and pressure to sell, they can choose to sell for less. But a developer cannot pay a lot more than he can hope to get as income from it, he would go in the red if he did that, whereas the speculator is, usually, just cashing in his profits. Sacrificing a bit of your profits is easier to do than committing to your own personal bankruptcy...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Looking at a micro view, meaning from the point of view of one economic actor (the developer), two things are essentially independent variables, the market value of housing per square meter and the construction cost of housing, which are determined by market conditions in that neighborhood and the construction industry. The one variable that can change most is the amount of square meters of floor area they can build, because it is an outcome of municipal regulation and the developer can even ask for zoning variances or changes to increase it (thus increasing the value of the lot).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The area that can be built ties directly to FAR. So, if my understanding is correct, FAR is directly proportional to the value of urban lots.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> LAND VALUE ($/M2) = LOT VALUE/LOT AREA </b><b><code>≤</code> (P-C)A/LOT AREA= (P-C) times FAR</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, the conclusions of this reasoning are the following:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li><b>Lot value is directly proportional to the FAR developers expect to be able to build on it</b></li>
<li><b>When FAR is not regulated, or when cities are open to spot zoning or FAR-raising variances, then this creates uncertainty about the ultimate FAR allowance of a lot, and thus, its value</b></li>
<li><b>Speculators will tend to estimate optimistically the FAR that will be ultimately allowed on their lot (because they want to maximize profit), developers will tend to estimate pessimistically the FAR (because they want to minimize risk)</b></li>
<li><b>It is crucial for reducing uncertainty and allowing speculators and developers to come to terms more readily to stabilize FAR with rigorous regulations, this helps stabilize land prices and helps the liquidity of lots</b></li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Therefore, FAR regulation, though it doesn't reduce externalities, does reduce economic uncertainty and helps facilitate deals between speculators and developers to allow the development of land.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll point out that FAR limits are a major part of Japanese zoning, the description of which I'm most well known. And if you agree with my assessment that the Japanese zoning system works uncommonly well for a zoning system, I don't think you can discount the role that FAR regulation plays in it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, it's important to understand that FAR is essentially always regulated by urban regulation and zoning. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The de facto FAR regulation of geometric regulations</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's take a lot, 60 meters wide and 35 meters deep:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MkKihWzyWMQ/Xh_7TB41XFI/AAAAAAAAF4E/Zn9kAASYrIAS2dCdT6uw5V7I97reudXgwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Lot1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="1071" height="322" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MkKihWzyWMQ/Xh_7TB41XFI/AAAAAAAAF4E/Zn9kAASYrIAS2dCdT6uw5V7I97reudXgwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Lot1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's suppose there are front and back setback regulations of 6 meters, and let's draw them on the lot:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e0LY9xaWzMk/Xh_7cwShCeI/AAAAAAAAF4I/iTp7audZJLQUL-tCuOS3Oz0qYFl7ueMygCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Lot2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="608" data-original-width="1078" height="360" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e0LY9xaWzMk/Xh_7cwShCeI/AAAAAAAAF4I/iTp7audZJLQUL-tCuOS3Oz0qYFl7ueMygCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Lot2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's also suppose that there are side margin requirements of at least 3 meters on each side:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yrlt3ph5UZo/Xh_7klLGbpI/AAAAAAAAF4Q/mw_HNA3Hscwd2-IKmgTFvoEANP5PPS5ygCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Lot3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="603" data-original-width="1112" height="346" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yrlt3ph5UZo/Xh_7klLGbpI/AAAAAAAAF4Q/mw_HNA3Hscwd2-IKmgTFvoEANP5PPS5ygCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Lot3.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And then let's suppose there's a 6-story height limit:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OOfH7r8SNGU/Xh_7rFfaVvI/AAAAAAAAF4U/DxhlM3PzieQxOJnI80jrdYfmcV0G0qcoQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Lot4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="582" data-original-width="1112" height="334" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OOfH7r8SNGU/Xh_7rFfaVvI/AAAAAAAAF4U/DxhlM3PzieQxOJnI80jrdYfmcV0G0qcoQCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Lot4.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The result of all these regulations is a box within which it is allowed to build, and outside of which it is illegal to build.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7zaanI_SXh0/Xh_72b_KDpI/AAAAAAAAF4c/RwCR55IilSkqIKmDBKrJF56sXk5C7VWDwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/FarOptimized.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="551" data-original-width="1018" height="346" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7zaanI_SXh0/Xh_72b_KDpI/AAAAAAAAF4c/RwCR55IilSkqIKmDBKrJF56sXk5C7VWDwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/FarOptimized.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
De facto, these geometric rules represent both:</div>
<ul>
<li>A lot coverage maximum (how much of the lot can be built over)</li>
<li>A FAR maximum (representing lot coverage times the number of stories that can be built)</li>
</ul>
So there's no reason why you need an actual FAR maximum then, because it's already provided for by other rules, correct?<br />
<br />
No, not correct.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The problem </h3>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The issue is that the lot's value is proportional to FAR, and if your allowed FAR is determined by geometric regulations, then developers willing to build up to the limit in every way will easily outbid anyone trying any other design. So basically, without an actual FAR restriction that is lower than the de facto FAR restriction of geometric rules, by setting those geometric limits, you already imposed on a developer the envelop of the building he will build. Notice how the last image's red block is nearly identical to those obese midrises I described? That is not a coincidence.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's continue on the previous example, the de facto regulations of the building are the following:</div>
<ul>
<li>Maximum lot coverage: 54 meters wide by 23 meters deep, 1 242 square meters on a 2 100 square-meter lot, so 59% (let's round that up to 60%).</li>
<li>Maximum FAR: 60% times 6 stories equals 360% FAR</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What happens if a developer who read my previous blog decided to make a 16-meter deep building only to maximize exterior walls and provide for more bedrooms per floor area? Well, his maximum FAR would be just about 40% by story, so 240% total.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That means that the FAR optimizing developer building obese midrises is going to massively outbid the slim building developer, his bid would be 50% higher because lot value is proportional to FAR. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Alternatively, that would mean the thinner building would need to be able to sustain a much higher price per square meter to be viable. How much higher? That depends on how expensive the land is, so I'll answer by a table:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uGtKACFQxVg/XiAIl6hisbI/AAAAAAAAF4s/X7NrtosjYcosch_JKCtDE6DMbzthhtqHACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Tableau.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="254" data-original-width="887" height="182" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uGtKACFQxVg/XiAIl6hisbI/AAAAAAAAF4s/X7NrtosjYcosch_JKCtDE6DMbzthhtqHACLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Tableau.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, as we can see from this table, the more expensive land is, the more the premium that will have to be paid to afford the thinner midrise and its units with more bedrooms. Which means in suburban areas, building less than the maximum FAR is actually doable, it will increase prices by only 10% or so by square meter... but for areas with high land costs, the difference becomes incredibly high, making the thinner option completely non-viable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, to sum up, <b>by restricting FAR through geometric regulations rather than directly, you:</b></div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Essentially impose thick, deep buildings that fill up this entire space in urban areas.</li>
<li>Where land prices are high, you get almost exclusively 1-bedroom apartments as a result (except where lots are smaller and have detached buildings only), anything else becomes much too expensive to build and buy because it would require to cut down the FAR and thus have much higher prices per square meter </li>
<li>In suburban areas, this problem is much reduced, and so you'll get more flexibility on building shape and size.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Note that other regulations can also affect what is built. For example, minimum parking requirements famously restrict the amount of units that can be built by the amount of parking that can be provided for them on the lot. So in areas with little FAR restriction and high parking requirements, you're likely to get extremely big units, as it's the most profitable form of building that can be built... which likely explains the insane housing consumption of most of America.</div>
<br />
<h3>
A proposal</h3>
So my proposal after this reflection is the following:<br />
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>FAR needs to be regulated directly, and it needs to be done in a strict manner, not easily modifiable by zoning variances or spot zoning, in order to create certainty with regards to land valuation</li>
<li>Maximum FAR ought to be at most 70 or 80% of "de facto maximum FAR", which is the FAR calculated as the maximum allowed if all geometric dimensions were pushed to the limits allowed by geometric regulations (height limits, setbacks, margins), so that developers are more free to adopt building shapes adapted to people's needs rather than just build thick boxes.</li>
<li>Geometric regulations can be kept to consider externalities, and should still be modifiable with variance demands, flexibility on geometry, inflexibility on FAR</li>
<li>Overall, allowed FAR should be increased by right in all neighborhoods to flood the market with available, untapped FAR, which should reduce the land value costs per square meter of floor area.</li>
<li>In this regulation, there is one exception, there should be a low-rise zone with a 4-story limit that should be strictly respected and FAR designed accordingly, because low-rises are much, much cheaper to build than midrises and high-rises. Once a zone is upzoned from low-rise to mid-rise, the jump in FAR allowed should be significant to compensate that increase in construction costs.</li>
</ol>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-74600180312457030352020-01-13T02:50:00.000-05:002020-01-14T23:51:37.890-05:00The midrise obesity crisis in North America<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, it's been a long while since my last post. A combination of a busy life, a feeling that I had said most of what I felt comfortable saying and a desire not to repeat myself contributed to this silence. That being said, I have just found something that inspired me to break my silence.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Note, in this blog, I will use metric, here are easy, rough conversion factors:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
1 square meter = 11 square feet</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
3 meters = 10 feet </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The modern mid-rise mini-boom</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In most North American cities, a new type of building has started to emerge, generally designed to offer urban condos for young professionals in search of more urban housing accommodations. Due to the homogenization of the market, these often share architectural traits and similar look, leading to some protesting about their "cookie cutter" nature, being built in all cities without respecting the local vernacular architecture.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is just one article criticizing the style: <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-america-s-new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same">Why America’s New Apartment Buildings All Look the Same</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3kvtDL3jsEA/XhwFGDb8EzI/AAAAAAAAF0U/X3St2bbl6WgjKTDeohNHAQ2PfS1xHmE9wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/BloombergModernApartment.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="763" data-original-width="1268" height="384" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3kvtDL3jsEA/XhwFGDb8EzI/AAAAAAAAF0U/X3St2bbl6WgjKTDeohNHAQ2PfS1xHmE9wCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/BloombergModernApartment.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>If you live in a North American city, these will look familiar to you... no matter in what city you live</i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I'm not going to criticize them too much on the look, because:</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Every new architectural style created a backlash when it was introduced, before later on being cherished by the same who criticized them... see for example "browstone" buildings in New York, first seen as soulless atrocities, now absolutely beloved by architects and urbanists.</li>
<li>These represent a new boom in urban housing that had been underdeveloped for decades, so I'm of the advice we shouldn't start objecting to something necessary just because it's not to the aesthetic taste of all.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That's not to say that this style of building is perfect, far from it. And this is why I'm writing this blog post, to criticize them for something I've yet to see addressed by most people, a problem of that style of development this is way more important than just aesthetic considerations and that I believe has major repercussions on the kind of housing provided by these new developments.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Without further ado... <b>These new apartment buildings are just too fat!</b></div>
<br />
Now that I have your attention, let me provide a few examples of apartment buildings in many different countries to illustrate the point.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Fit, slim modern and traditional apartment buildings around the world: providing family housing at urban densities</h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j4qq4DC07e0/XhwHy1X6XFI/AAAAAAAAF0g/o4o51rBjXaIGtAi9djimbeao-7ZzLCvTACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Paris.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="957" data-original-width="1089" height="562" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j4qq4DC07e0/XhwHy1X6XFI/AAAAAAAAF0g/o4o51rBjXaIGtAi9djimbeao-7ZzLCvTACLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Paris.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Haussmanian apartment buildings in Paris, the depth of the building measured here is 9,7 meters</i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0jOVH1SBXOA/XhwNd5smp7I/AAAAAAAAF1U/3tQpr2_eeHgVx1sMca586RySMqmtz8ppQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Vienna.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="915" data-original-width="1095" height="534" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0jOVH1SBXOA/XhwNd5smp7I/AAAAAAAAF1U/3tQpr2_eeHgVx1sMca586RySMqmtz8ppQCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Vienna.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Vienna traditional <a href="https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2015/05/traditional-euro-bloc-what-it-is-how-it.html">Euroblocs</a>, depth of 12 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HRGCMPbZPqo/XhwIKGDmkAI/AAAAAAAAF0o/1gMQh-lGwggoA4hkzUImKnX1nqMv8nNAwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Prague.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="979" data-original-width="1147" height="546" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HRGCMPbZPqo/XhwIKGDmkAI/AAAAAAAAF0o/1gMQh-lGwggoA4hkzUImKnX1nqMv8nNAwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Prague.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>These more recent Euroblocs in Prague have a depth of 16 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AvFqCEJnTkI/XhwMhlcUhJI/AAAAAAAAF00/JmT5UVI20moIOu3gArv8C7hzFsDKxM2zwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Warsaw.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="969" data-original-width="1127" height="548" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AvFqCEJnTkI/XhwMhlcUhJI/AAAAAAAAF00/JmT5UVI20moIOu3gArv8C7hzFsDKxM2zwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Warsaw.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Warsaw older apartment buildings, depth of 10 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uxCK9RCSQN4/XhwMwuhAwgI/AAAAAAAAF04/g5MHwl1s24kKH5NZGDf6cTExv1zWXMNhACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Singapour1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="905" data-original-width="1134" height="510" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uxCK9RCSQN4/XhwMwuhAwgI/AAAAAAAAF04/g5MHwl1s24kKH5NZGDf6cTExv1zWXMNhACLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Singapour1.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Singapore, urban apartment buildings, depth of 12 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PUSpgVV1AAs/XhwM621IDqI/AAAAAAAAF1A/xlWSwQOvkqcUjTnt0SVXnEvhBGpYIeh1wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/TokyoUR.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="941" data-original-width="1269" height="474" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PUSpgVV1AAs/XhwM621IDqI/AAAAAAAAF1A/xlWSwQOvkqcUjTnt0SVXnEvhBGpYIeh1wCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/TokyoUR.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Project from Urban Renaissance in Tokyo, depth of 9 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GvyLGk0GZPM/XhwNFkDxIpI/AAAAAAAAF1I/TcQ4ANKA-cg3cIRGeWBIasQSILb-ozieQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/SapporoManshon.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="936" data-original-width="1207" height="496" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GvyLGk0GZPM/XhwNFkDxIpI/AAAAAAAAF1I/TcQ4ANKA-cg3cIRGeWBIasQSILb-ozieQCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/SapporoManshon.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Manshon projects in Sapporo's suburbs, depth of a bit less than 15 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g4vcwRwLk_g/XhwNRYmPhtI/AAAAAAAAF1Q/eyQz8ycUEIEY-10ZT_kZ4j8_HpPca7TnACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/UppsalaSweden.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="895" data-original-width="1177" height="486" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g4vcwRwLk_g/XhwNRYmPhtI/AAAAAAAAF1Q/eyQz8ycUEIEY-10ZT_kZ4j8_HpPca7TnACLcBGAsYHQ/s640/UppsalaSweden.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Apartment buildings in Uppsala, a midsize Swedish city, depth of 14 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LY5WrgTZwko/XhwPhWQxOmI/AAAAAAAAF1k/828BZG1XoNIEK7ETIPREPKSj_lqrDoX4gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/BostonMethunionCoop.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="961" data-original-width="1260" height="488" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LY5WrgTZwko/XhwPhWQxOmI/AAAAAAAAF1k/828BZG1XoNIEK7ETIPREPKSj_lqrDoX4gCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/BostonMethunionCoop.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Boston's Methunion Manor coop buildings, depth of 11 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Note that the depth of these buildings from Europe, Asia and North America, meant to provide accommodations to all kinds of households in urban (or even suburban) areas varies from 8 to 15 meters, with most being from 9 to 12 meters.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let's look at some recent midrise condos in North American cities, shall we?</div>
<br />
<h3>
Fat, obese new urban apartment buildings of North America</h3>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--QB_4w9IxPo/XhwQUODT_mI/AAAAAAAAF1s/9DOBHwiJg0gOW_5VEYfVPw3G1VFraoBPwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Griffintown.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="967" data-original-width="1156" height="534" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--QB_4w9IxPo/XhwQUODT_mI/AAAAAAAAF1s/9DOBHwiJg0gOW_5VEYfVPw3G1VFraoBPwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Griffintown.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>New condo buildings in the Griffintown neighborhood of Montréal, depth of 21 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3LJnmNWcw8E/XhwQf-1UMoI/AAAAAAAAF1w/PwAjOvI9OHYiwaXi8XGifK30H1nogXGJgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Chicago.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="979" data-original-width="1217" height="514" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3LJnmNWcw8E/XhwQf-1UMoI/AAAAAAAAF1w/PwAjOvI9OHYiwaXi8XGifK30H1nogXGJgCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Chicago.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Chicago, depth of 19 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PhoVTH_JF7U/XhwQn-YG1BI/AAAAAAAAF14/uXNkXnLQeNIbZtVWE-nlxGEPISSk8XE0gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Seattle.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="952" data-original-width="1232" height="494" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PhoVTH_JF7U/XhwQn-YG1BI/AAAAAAAAF14/uXNkXnLQeNIbZtVWE-nlxGEPISSk8XE0gCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Seattle.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Seattle, depth of 20 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cNmvBdm6tVQ/XhwRPFhbRwI/AAAAAAAAF2E/gASS8SegIhUdSJrmkcdibFdrdl3UcfZQACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Dallas.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="959" data-original-width="1317" height="464" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cNmvBdm6tVQ/XhwRPFhbRwI/AAAAAAAAF2E/gASS8SegIhUdSJrmkcdibFdrdl3UcfZQACLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Dallas.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Dallas, depth of 21 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3phkzXtyJeE/XhwRYUUIuHI/AAAAAAAAF2I/SBg8FXp7T2QvvqZQ4t0BqQNneI1x5kvZgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Los%2BAngeles.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="944" data-original-width="1277" height="472" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3phkzXtyJeE/XhwRYUUIuHI/AAAAAAAAF2I/SBg8FXp7T2QvvqZQ4t0BqQNneI1x5kvZgCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Los%2BAngeles.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Los Angeles, depth of nearly 22 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are just an handful of examples, but with your knowledge of your own city and Google Maps, I invite you to locate new developments and also measure the depth of these new developments. They tend to average around 20-22 meters.</div>
<br />
<h3>
Why it matters</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, now that I've hopefully provided enough proof of a difference between the "slim" apartment buildings of Europe, Asia and old North American developments and the "thick" apartment buildings of the current midrise urban housing boom, one might say: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"Well, ok, but what does it matter? Doesn't it just mean greater lot coverage and density for a given number of story?"</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, yes it does mean greater lot coverage, but it does matter a lot if one's objective is to make sure all households can find accommodation in urban areas. That's because of windows. Either because of regulation or of market demand, it is generally accepted that two types of rooms in an unit require windows on the outside: bedrooms and the living room. The larger an household is, the more bedrooms they need, at least, according to modern living standards. So, families obviously require apartments with more bedrooms, one for the parents to share, and at least one bedroom for every two children (and ideally, if children have to share one bedroom, it should be bigger than if they each had their own bedroom).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, the more bedrooms an unit has, the more exterior wall it must "consume". The floor area doesn't increase proportionally however, if a 1-bedroom unit for 2 people is about 60 square meters, a 2-bedroom unit for a family of 2 parents and 1 child with 70 or 75 square meters is sufficient, an increase of only about 20% to deal with a family that is 50% bigger. Likewise, a 3-bedroom unit can make do with 85-90 square meters, and accommodate a family with 2 or even 3 children.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To sum up easily, with basic North American urban standards:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qrJdHGA2I80/XhwXYOemBtI/AAAAAAAAF2Y/pe58A7eaD0E67p4-GpLipPGziwOTGIjbwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/GraphFamilles.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="118" data-original-width="637" height="118" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qrJdHGA2I80/XhwXYOemBtI/AAAAAAAAF2Y/pe58A7eaD0E67p4-GpLipPGziwOTGIjbwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/GraphFamilles.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Visually, let's look at the floor area consumption and the exterior wall consumption of these family types:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NWmMRfOAw_0/XhwZjJCzRgI/AAAAAAAAF2k/BQVORrhamOk7i2tcvlS2iweE95xVArjkwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/GraphFamilyAreavsWall.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="326" data-original-width="945" height="220" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NWmMRfOAw_0/XhwZjJCzRgI/AAAAAAAAF2k/BQVORrhamOk7i2tcvlS2iweE95xVArjkwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/GraphFamilyAreavsWall.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We can notice that the exterior wall consumed increases much faster than the floor area as families grow more numerous. This suggests a new metric that ought to be considered, the <b>Floor-Area-to-Exterior-Wall ratio</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let me calculate it for each family's preferred housing unit and for three types of apartment buildings, the slim traditional apartment building with a depth of 10 meters, the thick traditional apartment building with a depth of 15 meters and the modern obese apartment building with a depth of 20,5 meters. For simplicity's sake, I'll presume an infinitely long apartment, it won't change results much.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q7zP2NRRx5A/XhwaKUObykI/AAAAAAAAF2s/rFyuoUSLoekbZwdApNOsbPqpWj0O6bdiQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/GrapfFamilyvsBldgType.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="317" data-original-width="607" height="334" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q7zP2NRRx5A/XhwaKUObykI/AAAAAAAAF2s/rFyuoUSLoekbZwdApNOsbPqpWj0O6bdiQCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/GrapfFamilyvsBldgType.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i> *****</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>ADDED ON 2020-01-14</i></div>
<br />
Alon Levy on Twitter remarked that living space by person in the US tends to be significantly higher than the numbers I selected. It's true that I used minimum floor area sizes reflected in Montréal and a lot of cities with expensive real estate... what happens if I adjust the numbers a bit for higher to take that into account?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r5voF4ufHOU/Xh6ULDXQw-I/AAAAAAAAF3o/mug5GlQV2Ss5Ash2Nscz-Un54kU8Nf0KwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/GraphFamillesGROS.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="118" data-original-width="638" height="118" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r5voF4ufHOU/Xh6ULDXQw-I/AAAAAAAAF3o/mug5GlQV2Ss5Ash2Nscz-Un54kU8Nf0KwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/GraphFamillesGROS.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dt3J57PmmYQ/Xh6ULNySLBI/AAAAAAAAF3k/VFzWH0QISIQ0urzysOLVwyHbdiwCOzjPQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/GrapfFamilyvsBldgTypeGROS.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="307" data-original-width="596" height="328" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dt3J57PmmYQ/Xh6ULNySLBI/AAAAAAAAF3k/VFzWH0QISIQ0urzysOLVwyHbdiwCOzjPQCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/GrapfFamilyvsBldgTypeGROS.png" width="640" /></a>So even adjusting for bigger apartments, the conclusion remains the same. Now, luxury apartments or suburban apartments obviously go beyond that minimum, but I don't think these are relevant or typical of what could be build but cannot when buildings start getting too thick.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>END OF ADDENDUM</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>***** </i> </div>
<br />
What this metric reveals is that the <b>modern obese apartment building doesn't provide near enough exterior wall to provide the desired housing units of households with more than 2 people in them. As a result, if someone wants a 2-bedroom or a 3-bedroom unit, they are going to consume a lot more floor area than they would actually need. This has the consequence of increasing the cost of such units needlessly and by a lot.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, imagine you have a modern apartment building with a floor area to exterior wall ratio of 10,5, and you want to make sure all units in it have 2 bedrooms, then while these units would only need 72 square meters of floor area in a properly shaped building, you would be forced to provide each unit with around 95 square meters of floor area. That's nearly 30% more... and that also means that the cost will be 30% higher. So if you'd be able to make and sell 72-square meter units for 300 000$, the 95-square meter unit would need to sell for 400 000$ instead. That is prohibitively more expensive for a lot of people.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I could make geometrical explanations, but I think this is telling enough.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Consequences of obese apartment buildings</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The result of this shape is that the vast majority of units in these new buildings are lofts or 1-bedroom units, and there are only rare 2-bedroom units or more, and they tend to be significantly more expensive than they ought to be. This makes families unable to profit from the recent boom in urban housing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One could say that at least it responds a need, that's true, but this shape is pernicious because it can't be easily remedied. You can't easily reconfigure the interior of the apartment to accommodate more than 1-bedroom units. So you bake in a bias for these units for singles whenever you build these buildings. It's fine if it would be the occasional building, but it's too common for that. If we want to allow families to live in urban areas, we need to find a way to correct this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Maybe we ought to implement regulation imposing a maximum ratio of floor area to exterior wall in new buildings.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Why it came about</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My guess as to how it came about is that it's a result of zoning regulations and financial incentives. Most North American zoning regulations control the following:</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Front setback</li>
<li>Back setback (the building can't extend to a certain distance of the property line in the back)</li>
<li>Height limit</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, most North American zoning regulations don't control FAR (floor area ratio), or when it does, it's not as strictly controlled as height and setbacks.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, if you're a developer who wants to maximize profit (meaning, produce the highest floor area possible from a lot) and you have to respect strict setback rules and height limits, then the easy solution is to build a building that occupies all the lot you are legally allowed to build on and to build the maximum number of stories.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One problem is that once developers start doing that, then all lots are priced according to that approach that maximized FAR, and so developers who would use alternative shapes that reduce FAR but increase the possibility of family-sized units are punished financially by paying for a lot priced for a higher FAR than they can build. That cuts into their profits.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A solution would be stricter FAR control in regulation (to control lot prices) and looser height and setback regulations.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Approaches to maximize lot coverage and still offer a reasonable amount of exterior walls</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These last examples are buildings that also seek to maximize lot
coverage while still taking into account the need for exterior walls to
provide family-sized housing units, through the use of peculiar forms
more complex than a simple rectangle. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J_7W70Q7-eA/Xh6ZBMyAZ8I/AAAAAAAAF34/wKnyj4DIkvwwvuCsgXzF1UnCd7Z9CltrgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Montr%25C3%25A9alTrou.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="892" data-original-width="1194" height="476" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J_7W70Q7-eA/Xh6ZBMyAZ8I/AAAAAAAAF34/wKnyj4DIkvwwvuCsgXzF1UnCd7Z9CltrgCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Montr%25C3%25A9alTrou.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Rare example in North America, a condo building from 2013 in Montréal. The roughly 6x6 meter cuts in the façade enable this building to have 3-BR condos that are less than 100 square meter big and selling for 280 000$ (OK, not in a particularly desired location)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNQ0qOwuVmQ/XhwfEW0rVwI/AAAAAAAAF24/XiQyoCtOHIU1OuATustX4tUtpQOeNku4ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/HongKongBis.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="839" data-original-width="1220" height="440" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNQ0qOwuVmQ/XhwfEW0rVwI/AAAAAAAAF24/XiQyoCtOHIU1OuATustX4tUtpQOeNku4ACLcBGAsYHQ/s640/HongKongBis.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Apartment buildings in Hong Kong, shaped like intersecting Hs, creating exterior walls between the arms of the building</i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IezvsW_nePA/XhwfbP_43tI/AAAAAAAAF3A/hvPtflvxn-ccl8NSma_w_AAAGZXOAa6jwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Singapour2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="940" data-original-width="1138" height="528" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IezvsW_nePA/XhwfbP_43tI/AAAAAAAAF3A/hvPtflvxn-ccl8NSma_w_AAAGZXOAa6jwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Singapour2.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>New apartment buildings in Singapore, also using irregular shapes that look like the letter H, again, to maximize exterior walls and allow the production of more multi-bedroom units</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eWiWeD6FThA/Xhwfs20QqtI/AAAAAAAAF3E/CpDy_A7kGuI-ybS7w2tTaBmm_XzIeyWoQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Madrid.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="988" data-original-width="1225" height="516" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eWiWeD6FThA/Xhwfs20QqtI/AAAAAAAAF3E/CpDy_A7kGuI-ybS7w2tTaBmm_XzIeyWoQCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Madrid.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This extremely deep apartment building in Madrid, Spain, has inner courtyards that reduce the effective depth of the building from 25 meters to just 12 meters </i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AnC4RwQdiUA/XhwgTHdJmGI/AAAAAAAAF3U/um-Xy7nyJrk7BrmWvvP-5PYMq7sRw2R2wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/SH3dtests.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="1422" height="204" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AnC4RwQdiUA/XhwgTHdJmGI/AAAAAAAAF3U/um-Xy7nyJrk7BrmWvvP-5PYMq7sRw2R2wCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/SH3dtests.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Some tests I made of different apartment building shapes and FAR per story of each, showing high lot coverage can be achieved while avoiding the obese apartment buildings we're building currently</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-33982736510664610712017-03-08T01:24:00.003-05:002018-11-13T10:57:35.757-05:00A catalog of density (Québec/Canada version)<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, I've recently discovered an interesting tool to visualize census data for Canada, <a href="http://www.censusmapper.ca/">www.censusmapper.ca</a>.
Among its various data, it allows to do visualization of population
density bloc by bloc (rather, census tract by census tract, but most of
them are bloc-sized). This made me want to do a kind of encyclopaedia of
density, for typical forms of development in Québec, and maybe a bit
from Canada too. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why
Québec? Because I live here and Québec has a special focus on low-rise
developments lacking in a lot of North America. I may do one for
American developments one day, with city-data providing a similar tool
to explore population density bloc by bloc in the US.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before going on, I'd like to point out a few things.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First,
there is the question "is there a density threshold for walkability?".
This depends on a lot of factors, and my own thinking on the subject has
led me <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2015/11/commercial-or-residential-density-which.html">to doubt that residential density is even the most important factor</a>.
Overall, though, I tend to consider that local walkability is highly
dependent on access to a modern supermarket, the most important and
frequently visited store for most people, of which there tends to be
about 1 per 8 000 to 12 000 people in North America and a 10-minute
"walkshed" is about 1 kilometer big. So a walkable neighborhood,
supposing a good design that maximizes walking speed, should have 8 000
to 10 000 people per square kilometer. Which comes down to 80 to 100
people per hectare.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Around
here, people also suppose that the minimum density to support
high-frequency transit is about 35 dwelling units per hectare, which
would be about 60 to 80 people per hectare.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, and a quick summary for units.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4 people per acre = 10 people per hectare = 1 000 people per square kilometer = 2 560 people per square mile</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll use people/units per hectare in the following.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK, so let's get started.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Traditional Québec developments</h2>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Traditional village mix</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Xol1yLw9Phg/WLzpBPrA9aI/AAAAAAAAFKw/_vXfojzhjAY3zp0U8nhlCxWpaT_hx4g0gCLcB/s1600/VieuxL%25C3%25A9vis1.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="374" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Xol1yLw9Phg/WLzpBPrA9aI/AAAAAAAAFKw/_vXfojzhjAY3zp0U8nhlCxWpaT_hx4g0gCLcB/s640/VieuxL%25C3%25A9vis1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3F6zpVdogKU/WLzpBLC2MTI/AAAAAAAAFKs/uB_0x8grKpENYPH2In9xI2UzB6zs0tP3QCLcB/s1600/VieuxL%25C3%25A9visAir.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="406" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3F6zpVdogKU/WLzpBLC2MTI/AAAAAAAAFKs/uB_0x8grKpENYPH2In9xI2UzB6zs0tP3QCLcB/s640/VieuxL%25C3%25A9visAir.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>50 to 70 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>30 to 40 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is an old type of chaotic developments common to old villages, with
small detached single-family homes living alongside semi-detached homes,
duplexes and other low-rise multifamily buildings. What characterizes
it is the lack of uniformity, neither building line, nor architectural
style, nor building function are uniform. This is the orderly chaos of
developments pre-zoning.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Old single-family suburban areas</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TqNEHOMRJNg/WLzqopxgBMI/AAAAAAAAFK4/78a-JvFlgOYLPfESca65soBZNsx74y7bgCLcB/s1600/Longueuil1.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="380" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TqNEHOMRJNg/WLzqopxgBMI/AAAAAAAAFK4/78a-JvFlgOYLPfESca65soBZNsx74y7bgCLcB/s640/Longueuil1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1jPUtqWZvL0/WLzqo4S4cGI/AAAAAAAAFK8/aKV8XrSBOjAQsqod1Mczz5Gy2NM91sEygCLcB/s1600/Longueil1Aire.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1jPUtqWZvL0/WLzqo4S4cGI/AAAAAAAAFK8/aKV8XrSBOjAQsqod1Mczz5Gy2NM91sEygCLcB/s640/Longueil1Aire.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>40 to 50 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>15 to 20 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is a form often seen in older suburbs, a transitionary period between
the chaos of early villages and the strict planning of today's cities.
Lots tend to be about 15m x 30m (50' x 100'), front yards are more
common, rear alleys are extremely rare.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Old suburban areas, mix of houses and low-rise apartments</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XevFDyuuMt8/WLzrtoE6UoI/AAAAAAAAFLI/zuDzaY32fBkLJ_DCEdl4HcaILOCQ_e96wCLcB/s1600/Longueuil2.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="382" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XevFDyuuMt8/WLzrtoE6UoI/AAAAAAAAFLI/zuDzaY32fBkLJ_DCEdl4HcaILOCQ_e96wCLcB/s640/Longueuil2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EqCXw0V5Mkc/WLzrt7Jc8ZI/AAAAAAAAFLM/8CVTlEa-jbw9ncUwgqH_t2mfgwEjU-tUgCLcB/s1600/Longueuil2Air.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="340" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EqCXw0V5Mkc/WLzrt7Jc8ZI/AAAAAAAAFLM/8CVTlEa-jbw9ncUwgqH_t2mfgwEjU-tUgCLcB/s640/Longueuil2Air.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 55 to 70 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>25 to 35 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is present in some older suburbs that were built before strict
single-use zoning came about and that had a mix of homes and low-rise
apartments. As a result, zoning in these areas often allow both
single-family and multi-family uses, even today allowing for the
replacement of old houses by small condo buildings. In a way, this is
very similar to the old village mix, simply with a more orderly design,
with a clear building line, for instance, with front yards and more
regular spacing between buildings. Density is consequently very similar
between the two. Still the density here is not quite up to par with
highly walkable cities, it's a bit too low but it's pretty close and it
can justify adequate transit options. When they were built, people
tolerated smaller stores and more crowding per unit, so these were
highly walkable then.<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Duplex developments</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Hu0VCKdauo/WLzt2cXBTdI/AAAAAAAAFLU/CHKh4K16ND03HPWAZbvBxyHWLLRWxSxDwCLcB/s1600/TR1.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="378" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Hu0VCKdauo/WLzt2cXBTdI/AAAAAAAAFLU/CHKh4K16ND03HPWAZbvBxyHWLLRWxSxDwCLcB/s640/TR1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MDK9bwwP6DU/WLzt2Wgc0sI/AAAAAAAAFLY/X4xNk4xFWo0ORZrfXtgX4ps8RImL-nyZQCLcB/s1600/TR1air.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="398" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MDK9bwwP6DU/WLzt2Wgc0sI/AAAAAAAAFLY/X4xNk4xFWo0ORZrfXtgX4ps8RImL-nyZQCLcB/s640/TR1air.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 55 to 60 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>30 to 35 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The
duplex is perhaps one of the most common types of buildings in
traditional Québec towns and villages, especially the squarish duplex
with exterior stairways, balcony and porch. Uniform streets of these are
relatively rare, but they exist, like this neighborhood in
Trois-Rivières. The density here is still at or a bit below the
threshold for minimum density. Traditional duplexes allowed people who
couldn't afford single-family houses to afford housing by building a
second story and renting it out, creating revenue that allows the owner
to afford his own unit. Duplexes also allow for more air and light for
every unit, with side windows made possible by each building being built
apart from one another and separated by a few meters. This also allows
for 1 or 2 parking spots to be built per unit, so even if you're in a
car-centric city, this form of development is viable, all without
violating some people's low-rise sensibilities.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Standalone triplexes</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MJT_cpytn94/WL-aWUXdrYI/AAAAAAAAFQE/kUgLCNvWNmMgDMX1oUNRTGeKbRm3YE_EQCLcB/s1600/Shawinigan.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="398" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MJT_cpytn94/WL-aWUXdrYI/AAAAAAAAFQE/kUgLCNvWNmMgDMX1oUNRTGeKbRm3YE_EQCLcB/s640/Shawinigan.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 60 to 90 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>50 to 70 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Standalone
triplexes aren't rare in older towns, but it's rare to have blocs full
of them. Shawinigan, a small town north of Trois-Rivières is one of the
rare cases I know of where this is a dominant typology of its older
neighborhoods. The population density could be higher if it weren't for
the fact that this city is in demographic decline and so housing is
cheap, allowing singles to rent big apartments. I'm not kidding, I
checked the rental ads for the town, you can get a 3-BR apartment in one
of the buildings on the picture for 400$ a month. Anyway, if properly
occupied, this typology would easily be favorable to walkable cities and
good transit. Also, contrast this image with the previous one to see
the impact street trees have on the beauty of a street.<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Attached duplexes</b></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hgYOv3_Rx1E/WLzwPwt6ImI/AAAAAAAAFLo/XCTD_GaqSt8PqgJF3HzsPB7JQwAbiQqkQCLcB/s1600/MtlDuplex.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="458" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hgYOv3_Rx1E/WLzwPwt6ImI/AAAAAAAAFLo/XCTD_GaqSt8PqgJF3HzsPB7JQwAbiQqkQCLcB/s640/MtlDuplex.JPG" width="640" /></a><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AVSDnyaNM6A/WLzwP110mMI/AAAAAAAAFLk/MIfTcqHsrxcVIDxrEjI31EBYQyDVu80MgCLcB/s1600/MtlDuplexAir.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="436" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AVSDnyaNM6A/WLzwP110mMI/AAAAAAAAFLk/MIfTcqHsrxcVIDxrEjI31EBYQyDVu80MgCLcB/s640/MtlDuplexAir.JPG" width="640" /></a></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 120 to 150 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>60 to 75 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is mainly seen in major cities that had streetcar suburbs. Montréal has
neighborhoods with this typology. It's a bit similar to the previous
duplexes, but instead of being squarish detached structures, these are
deeper than wide and built wall to wall. Otherwise, the concept is the
same. Since side spacing is eliminated, it allows for essentially a
doubling of density. We are well in the territory of the walkable city
here, and indeed neighborhoods with this typology in Montréal are
associated with strong neighborhood stores, high walk scores and low (30
to 50%) car commuting mode shares. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Attached triplexes</b></h3>
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-btY41FYN-ls/WLzx3E8XfiI/AAAAAAAAFL0/YsyVRGgeAJ0VSplyoxwjJ9OaG2IlA11JACLcB/s1600/MTLtriplex.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="394" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-btY41FYN-ls/WLzx3E8XfiI/AAAAAAAAFL0/YsyVRGgeAJ0VSplyoxwjJ9OaG2IlA11JACLcB/s640/MTLtriplex.JPG" width="640" /></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FoLlqWONIv4/WLzx3Dk04xI/AAAAAAAAFLw/TsycRuLrTyoKwxnb3XWOmH7BePQpON35wCLcB/s1600/MTLtriplexair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="436" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FoLlqWONIv4/WLzx3Dk04xI/AAAAAAAAFLw/TsycRuLrTyoKwxnb3XWOmH7BePQpON35wCLcB/s640/MTLtriplexair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 190 to 220 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>90 to 120 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is like the previous case, but instead of being limited to 2 stories,
you have 3. Obviously, this results in a 50% boost to density and
creates very high density<b>. </b>This doesn't provide more parking than
the attached duplexes of the previous example, while density is
boosted. So it won't satisfy suburban parking requirements and it will
yield lower car mode shares, simply because it's next to impossible to
maintain universal car ownership due to the lack of parking spot. Many
Montréal neighborhoods include a mix of 2-story and 3-story attached
buildings, and have density between these two examples of uniform duplex
and triplex developments.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>European-style blocs</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nflGKtHDt8k/WLz26ZQ0fKI/AAAAAAAAFMM/K643I9xsRokzIxtXuglKk11SZa_rj5FNQCLcB/s1600/Qu%25C3%25A9bec2.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nflGKtHDt8k/WLz26ZQ0fKI/AAAAAAAAFMM/K643I9xsRokzIxtXuglKk11SZa_rj5FNQCLcB/s640/Qu%25C3%25A9bec2.JPG" width="640" /></a><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3sZXdN_r7Sw/WLz26QJ6SbI/AAAAAAAAFMI/XYBslJ2W8bEPqP1XnyYiM_7L7-tc47MGACLcB/s1600/Qu%25C3%25A9bec2air.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="488" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3sZXdN_r7Sw/WLz26QJ6SbI/AAAAAAAAFMI/XYBslJ2W8bEPqP1XnyYiM_7L7-tc47MGACLcB/s640/Qu%25C3%25A9bec2air.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 200 to 280 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>120 to 150 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes,
these do exist in North America. Very rare, but you can find them in
the Vieux-Québec area of Québec City. Tightly packed 2- and 3-story
buildings with high lot coverage. Very high density, very few parking
spots and narrow streets. Nice to visit, more debatable how nice to live
in considering the proximity of buildings both in front and in back.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Modern and transitional developments in Québec</b></h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These
are developments made since the advent of mass motorization, often, but
not always, with parking. These developments often incorporate modern
construction techniques, whereas the traditional developments didn't.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Usual bungalow developments</b></h3>
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lcYbYQ71gNY/WLz5MXdEHTI/AAAAAAAAFMY/v2ngmEqWGoIxcIeK1kH7T3E-rBM-uHyVgCLcB/s1600/Banlieue1.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="370" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lcYbYQ71gNY/WLz5MXdEHTI/AAAAAAAAFMY/v2ngmEqWGoIxcIeK1kH7T3E-rBM-uHyVgCLcB/s640/Banlieue1.JPG" width="640" /></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xmOf66bOUvs/WLz5MbUJVoI/AAAAAAAAFMc/stVDCi99U8IT5mZ5IarUmTDwGW8KS474wCLcB/s1600/Banlieue1air.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="402" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xmOf66bOUvs/WLz5MbUJVoI/AAAAAAAAFMc/stVDCi99U8IT5mZ5IarUmTDwGW8KS474wCLcB/s640/Banlieue1air.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 25 to 30 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>10 to 13 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is the usual sprawl-type development in suburbs all around Québec.
Generally wide (20m x 35m) plots with wide 1-story houses (with livable
basements) and driveways. Density half to a third that of traditional
villages and even 30 to 50% less than earlier single-family suburbs. Far
from density thresholds for walkability and for transit services.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: start;">
<span style="font-size: 18.72px;"><b>Suburban semi-detached homes</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lGyyl17oTps/W-ruHhK0m1I/AAAAAAAAFlg/laV0RTpI2GsreJ5b35dhFCdfeQhKFKksgCLcBGAs/s1600/SDrue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="1600" height="224" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lGyyl17oTps/W-ruHhK0m1I/AAAAAAAAFlg/laV0RTpI2GsreJ5b35dhFCdfeQhKFKksgCLcBGAs/s640/SDrue.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B8PHuqJbZRE/W-ruJOMT63I/AAAAAAAAFlk/6wkkt6PCcjg8GO-tvdtTptLd6bZw5hetQCLcBGAs/s1600/SDquartier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="522" data-original-width="1282" height="260" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B8PHuqJbZRE/W-ruJOMT63I/AAAAAAAAFlk/6wkkt6PCcjg8GO-tvdtTptLd6bZw5hetQCLcBGAs/s640/SDquartier.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 50 to 65 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>20 to 25 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is a type of housing present in some suburbs. It's rare for it to be the dominant housing type as in the case of the neighborhood there, but it offers more affordable suburban housing options that remain palatable to people looking for suburban living. It's single-family housing, with plenty of parking, a front yard and a back yard, just sharing one exterior wall with a neighboring house, with both houses built on a single bungalow lot, doubling density. To compensate for the smaller building footprint, the houses usually have two stories plus an inhabitable basement.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: start;">
<span style="font-size: 18.72px;"><b>Suburban narrow homes</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9PqXj_B-8is/W-rzoSeAzjI/AAAAAAAAFmI/roxyCCakwMMne9paTmW_xU4tOCSrlaFMACLcBGAs/s1600/Maisons%25C3%2589troitesrue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="758" data-original-width="1584" height="306" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9PqXj_B-8is/W-rzoSeAzjI/AAAAAAAAFmI/roxyCCakwMMne9paTmW_xU4tOCSrlaFMACLcBGAs/s640/Maisons%25C3%2589troitesrue.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SZBERRFrryA/W-rzpF4BfHI/AAAAAAAAFmM/f4q0XuAC3yMJlXOJ46yEBmhXGH8c2G2xACLcBGAs/s1600/Maisons%25C3%2589troitesquartier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="575" data-original-width="866" height="424" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SZBERRFrryA/W-rzpF4BfHI/AAAAAAAAFmM/f4q0XuAC3yMJlXOJ46yEBmhXGH8c2G2xACLcBGAs/s640/Maisons%25C3%2589troitesquartier.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 65 to 75 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>20 to 25 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These are new developments in suburbs, largely the result of density targets in areas targeted for "TOD" development according to the Metropolitan Community of Montréal. Single-family houses built as densely as possible while retaining suburban sensibilities, including driveways and garages. The result: a front yard that is more pavement than grass, with little place for trees.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: start;">
<span style="font-size: 18.72px;"><b>Suburban condo triplexes</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VaOR_wmD3Lw/W-rxMCBS8GI/AAAAAAAAFl0/uoILPXqJOm0RaDZxQo0JSou6SrjhbIz9gCLcBGAs/s1600/SBtriplexrue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="567" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VaOR_wmD3Lw/W-rxMCBS8GI/AAAAAAAAFl0/uoILPXqJOm0RaDZxQo0JSou6SrjhbIz9gCLcBGAs/s640/SBtriplexrue.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mKjNzMIlWnw/W-rxMN28DpI/AAAAAAAAFl4/0iDamYVTf4kahPjTy0NmQcLw7ygtaNfDQCLcBGAs/s1600/SBtriplexquartier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="593" data-original-width="1276" height="296" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mKjNzMIlWnw/W-rxMN28DpI/AAAAAAAAFl4/0iDamYVTf4kahPjTy0NmQcLw7ygtaNfDQCLcBGAs/s640/SBtriplexquartier.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<b> 70 to 80 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>35 to 45 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is a relatively recent development (over the past couple of decades) in some suburbs. Standalone triplex condos built on single-family lots. Another example of how more affordable housing and more density can be added to a suburban neighborhood without breaking the single-family lots. The need for parking however results in a very high proportion of the lot being paved over for parking. The lack of private front or back yards reduces the attraction of these housing types for families, resulting in lower numbers of people per unit than semi-detached.</div>
</div>
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3-story condo or apartment buildings</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pxq5qYijRaM/WL0B0YEAeDI/AAAAAAAAFMs/je4ou7PGAGkruZq1GWRJOqQEV28YLOsnACLcB/s1600/Suburb3story.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="322" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pxq5qYijRaM/WL0B0YEAeDI/AAAAAAAAFMs/je4ou7PGAGkruZq1GWRJOqQEV28YLOsnACLcB/s640/Suburb3story.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bQo_XOj20b0/WL0B0Xoy-mI/AAAAAAAAFMw/E94SWySsJUUU74IWQFt73ecRH4stKvomgCLcB/s1600/Suburb3storyair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bQo_XOj20b0/WL0B0Xoy-mI/AAAAAAAAFMw/E94SWySsJUUU74IWQFt73ecRH4stKvomgCLcB/s640/Suburb3storyair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 60 to 90 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>45 to 60 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is a type of low-rise apartments often built in suburbs. Some are
apartments for poorer residents, others are more upscale for the middle
class and sold as condos. They offer similar density to tradition
isolated duplex neighborhoods or traditional village mixes, but offer a
lot more parking. They also have bigger setbacks and thus maintain air
and light in a way that is tolerable for the suburban-minded. As they
tend to have little or no underground parking, instead opting for
parking lots, they are quite cheap to build.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Dense low-rise suburban apartment or condo complexes</b> </h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rYM-CEVCTgQ/WL0DggUbqdI/AAAAAAAAFNA/fe9xHpWy02E4KrSBvqKjFL-tgI1yui_4wCLcB/s1600/Suburban4story.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="406" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rYM-CEVCTgQ/WL0DggUbqdI/AAAAAAAAFNA/fe9xHpWy02E4KrSBvqKjFL-tgI1yui_4wCLcB/s640/Suburban4story.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rXzgv-kyutI/WL0DgDA97eI/AAAAAAAAFM8/M5qcUfN6myQBB7fwA270CnuYXxam3oB9QCLcB/s1600/Suburban4storyair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="482" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rXzgv-kyutI/WL0DgDA97eI/AAAAAAAAFM8/M5qcUfN6myQBB7fwA270CnuYXxam3oB9QCLcB/s640/Suburban4storyair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>100 to 120 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>80 to 90 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is more or less the maximum density you can get while respecting
suburban parking requirements without getting into mid-rise or high-rise
territory and without resorting to massive underground parking to keep
costs down. This density is sufficient to provide for walkable
neighborhoods and to sustain transit lines. However, the quantity of
parking lots they generate reduces the desire to walk and makes it easy
for people to opt to own and use cars.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Attached duplexes built over garages</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fVc0fNRFvWw/WL0GCKhsc5I/AAAAAAAAFNM/As8M18jR1Mg6Xd5_S7pLH5Ik4Q8USnCWgCLcB/s1600/Carduplex.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="322" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fVc0fNRFvWw/WL0GCKhsc5I/AAAAAAAAFNM/As8M18jR1Mg6Xd5_S7pLH5Ik4Q8USnCWgCLcB/s640/Carduplex.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4HZWdNR9-rA/WL0GCE-Ap3I/AAAAAAAAFNQ/3v8NGneSzfIY0rPQMvo-RP6DvL0ty0E4ACLcB/s1600/Carduplexair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="386" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4HZWdNR9-rA/WL0GCE-Ap3I/AAAAAAAAFNQ/3v8NGneSzfIY0rPQMvo-RP6DvL0ty0E4ACLcB/s640/Carduplexair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>140 to 160 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>55 to 65 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is essentially the traditional attached duplex neighborhood adapted to
the car era, with slip-under, front-loading garages to satisfy parking
requirements. The result is that they retain the old duplexes' density,
but at a cost of comfort to walk and of street design. The massive
driveways mean frequent curb cuts making walking less comfortable and
reduces trees and grass to a minimum, making the area less hospitable to
human beings. The number of units per hectare here isn't all that high,
but the location of these buildings near Montréal, the size of the
units, the private door and the back yard all result in a high number of
occupants per unit, and thus higher population density than the
isolated low-rise apartments in the two previous types.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Modern townhouses</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JFbHL7ca0uA/WL5WXbXk2UI/AAAAAAAAFNw/LX1ijP7a3zUqp5TGf7x6OOgTQ1HHdxKvQCLcB/s1600/ModernTownhouse.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="338" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JFbHL7ca0uA/WL5WXbXk2UI/AAAAAAAAFNw/LX1ijP7a3zUqp5TGf7x6OOgTQ1HHdxKvQCLcB/s640/ModernTownhouse.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AyavhqWiYT0/WL5WXZDFwRI/AAAAAAAAFN0/r5hnGP42Zi40_klq263goGbNm_CJiae6QCLcB/s1600/ModernTownhouseair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="368" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AyavhqWiYT0/WL5WXZDFwRI/AAAAAAAAFN0/r5hnGP42Zi40_klq263goGbNm_CJiae6QCLcB/s640/ModernTownhouseair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 100 to 130 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>40 to 45 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is a rare form of modern townhouses present in a few areas. Its
modernity is not just in its architectural style, but in the parking
present below the back yard's porch, with a driveway sloping down
between each group of townhouses. This is an innovative attempt at
reconciliation of the car-centric development but with an urban face,
limiting curb cuts and preserving front and back yards while still
offering at least one parking spot in a garage per house. However, it's
not particularly affordable and its design over 4 stories (basement, 1st
floor, 2nd floor and 3rd floor) means a lot of stair-climbing for every
member of the family. No need for a Stairmaster with a house like that.<b> </b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Attached modern walk-up apartments</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KuI3kfGjklI/WL5VtgXJ7pI/AAAAAAAAFNo/fL1rEHlNR7M-9tssM-uQCXtzq7GFngt0gCLcB/s1600/ParcExt.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="334" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KuI3kfGjklI/WL5VtgXJ7pI/AAAAAAAAFNo/fL1rEHlNR7M-9tssM-uQCXtzq7GFngt0gCLcB/s640/ParcExt.JPG" width="640" /></a><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EPZpflnQvkY/WL5Vtot_rII/AAAAAAAAFNs/w-fjoIjaDhw6JaHvD1KFzvT3t2bpJyLYACLcB/s1600/ParcExtair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="442" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EPZpflnQvkY/WL5Vtot_rII/AAAAAAAAFNs/w-fjoIjaDhw6JaHvD1KFzvT3t2bpJyLYACLcB/s640/ParcExtair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>330 to 380 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>140 to 160 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I
wasn't sure whether I should have included this in traditional or
modern developments. On one hand, its architecture style is reminiscent
of the duplexes built over garages and there are some driveways and
garages present, at the same time, it clearly offers way less parking
than most other modern developments. Anyway, this is, as far as I'm
aware, the densest low-rise area in Montréal, located in Parc-Extension.
These are effectively 4-story buildings as the basement has units too.
It's also a particularly poor area, populated by recent immigrants for
the most part, so it has higher than average number of occupants per
unit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Modern planned mid-high-rise condos</b></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kTpJrsSnvog/WL5cUwjee6I/AAAAAAAAFOM/AetMBgETj5o8EbzxlrWDXtD3tCcgLRLSwCLcB/s1600/MidHighCondo.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="402" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kTpJrsSnvog/WL5cUwjee6I/AAAAAAAAFOM/AetMBgETj5o8EbzxlrWDXtD3tCcgLRLSwCLcB/s640/MidHighCondo.JPG" width="640" /></a></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uC4ceKTjObU/WL5cUzg3d0I/AAAAAAAAFOI/rXMLYG7jxS0BT2AX8_ZwYIZKah2yJxLWQCLcB/s1600/MidHighCondoair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="470" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uC4ceKTjObU/WL5cUzg3d0I/AAAAAAAAFOI/rXMLYG7jxS0BT2AX8_ZwYIZKah2yJxLWQCLcB/s640/MidHighCondoair.JPG" width="640" /></a></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>350 to 500 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>250 to 300 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is a form of planned condo development on old disaffected industrial
grounds. The planning is very evident and show bloc-sized planning, with
huge garages in the interior of the blocs being covered by parks for
the enjoyment of the residents, though the park is not visible from the
street as it is elevated a couple of stories up. The high cost per
square foot and deep building results in a very high amounts of units,
as most of them are studios or 1-bedroom apartments. It's good density
but that doesn't help life on the street as much as previous eras
duplexes and triplexes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>High-rise compact developments, the top of Montréal density</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xbs_hlE0Utg/WL5d4wBJ91I/AAAAAAAAFOY/PnLizFgXkREi278mgs40WulmPERR3PLWgCLcB/s1600/HRConcordia.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="476" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xbs_hlE0Utg/WL5d4wBJ91I/AAAAAAAAFOY/PnLizFgXkREi278mgs40WulmPERR3PLWgCLcB/s640/HRConcordia.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9WObxqGE3PA/WL5d4xap-zI/AAAAAAAAFOc/Y47pUWTZx80G9bQQwwbrubuWEJYTAvVygCLcB/s1600/HRConcordiaair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="436" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9WObxqGE3PA/WL5d4xap-zI/AAAAAAAAFOc/Y47pUWTZx80G9bQQwwbrubuWEJYTAvVygCLcB/s640/HRConcordiaair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>800 to 1 200 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>500 to 800 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I
couldn't avoid mentioning the highest density blocs of Montréal that I
know. These are high-rise apartments located near Concordia university
in downtown Montréal. These are not only high, they have pretty high lot
coverage, for a very high population density. This is the kind of
development you can barely imagine anywhere else but there, to satisfy
students' requirements for housing. The use of the ground floor for
retail and restaurants also helps attract and retain people to the area,
unlike the pretty sterile modern condos shown in the previous type.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So
here you go, an overview of densities present in Québec, from
traditional villages with isolated buildings to modern developments.
This can provide a good idea of the possible ways to achieve a density
that is sufficient for walkability and transit use, and how high-rises
are not necessary to achieve sufficient density.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Select typologies from the RoC (Rest of Canada)</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So
this was a description of some housing typologies found in Québec, both
traditional and modern. But Canadian cities can be a bit different,
they're more like American cities in some ways, often with a focus on
single-family housing and bigger tenement buildings.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Traditional urban homes - low density (Hamilton)</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UyFtSNqx2Qw/WL93KPoHfTI/AAAAAAAAFO4/0aMdH-ZXBrA49iuLkMV6BYIXG8aqrHf7wCLcB/s1600/HamiltonLow.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UyFtSNqx2Qw/WL93KPoHfTI/AAAAAAAAFO4/0aMdH-ZXBrA49iuLkMV6BYIXG8aqrHf7wCLcB/s640/HamiltonLow.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KX3hz-GAu54/WL93KE6j77I/AAAAAAAAFO0/-v9y6fXzXjoVgDNM0hTO8er4MPN4B8gpACLcB/s1600/HamiltonLowAir.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="406" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KX3hz-GAu54/WL93KE6j77I/AAAAAAAAFO0/-v9y6fXzXjoVgDNM0hTO8er4MPN4B8gpACLcB/s640/HamiltonLowAir.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>45 to 60 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>20 to 25 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For
anyone who knows American small towns, this is nothing new. These are
detached homes built close to one another but not sharing walls, on
narrow but deep lots, a typology of urban housing extremely common in
anglo North America. The density isn't quite high enough for walkability
today, but once upon a time, you could have expected many of these
homes to have taken in boarders. Today, this is extremely rare and
families are smaller, so population density is probably much lower than
100 years ago.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Traditional urban homes - high density (Hamilton)</b></h3>
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dug6Au7Gq6I/WL97zfJrldI/AAAAAAAAFPE/CiQPYXktXS4dVNDXTPOIiCpl1VoDOr88gCLcB/s1600/HamiltonHigh.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="364" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dug6Au7Gq6I/WL97zfJrldI/AAAAAAAAFPE/CiQPYXktXS4dVNDXTPOIiCpl1VoDOr88gCLcB/s640/HamiltonHigh.JPG" width="640" /></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R0RlcHaLIqY/WL97zTXurqI/AAAAAAAAFPI/G3VLqH15-gICT8mKEx-X4arohoQV7EizQCLcB/s1600/HamiltonHighair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="440" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R0RlcHaLIqY/WL97zTXurqI/AAAAAAAAFPI/G3VLqH15-gICT8mKEx-X4arohoQV7EizQCLcB/s640/HamiltonHighair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>80 to 100 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>35 to 45 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is just a denser form of the previous, with even narrower lots and
homes nearly touching, with barely enough space for a man to walk
between them. The density here is similar to Japanese single-family
house neighborhoods and is actually sufficient for a walkable
neighborhood and adequate transit services.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Toronto traditional urban homes and semi-detached</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G2VPCMrHVvI/WL99lBLsB4I/AAAAAAAAFPU/LAIe6yXH-yQNbHE_MS0hT5zifphGDweOQCLcB/s1600/TorontoHouse.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="406" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G2VPCMrHVvI/WL99lBLsB4I/AAAAAAAAFPU/LAIe6yXH-yQNbHE_MS0hT5zifphGDweOQCLcB/s640/TorontoHouse.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZTs1yJVmcfY/WL99lD0IFoI/AAAAAAAAFPQ/JH1DbIinIHE2cY58hNlFz0jx-zTGQkIZQCLcB/s1600/TorontoHouseAir.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="482" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZTs1yJVmcfY/WL99lD0IFoI/AAAAAAAAFPQ/JH1DbIinIHE2cY58hNlFz0jx-zTGQkIZQCLcB/s640/TorontoHouseAir.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 100 to 130 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>45 to 55 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is the traditional form of development in Toronto, the equivalent of
Montréal's duplex neighborhoods, except instead of relatively wide
duplexes on shallow lots, these are detached and semi-detached homes
that are very narrow on very deep lots. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Modern snout houses (Mississauga)</b></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0VvnwhPG-f8/WL9_ZZT2mcI/AAAAAAAAFPk/w7QPCDMhjcwFeNwy15jV5vguqywolMSPQCLcB/s1600/Mississauga.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="382" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0VvnwhPG-f8/WL9_ZZT2mcI/AAAAAAAAFPk/w7QPCDMhjcwFeNwy15jV5vguqywolMSPQCLcB/s640/Mississauga.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hHehRxd4oJ0/WL9_ZeT6CiI/AAAAAAAAFPg/pGpyzububCkCS9HtIw3ZfaCNUxd63JqfQCLcB/s1600/Mississaugaair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="448" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hHehRxd4oJ0/WL9_ZeT6CiI/AAAAAAAAFPg/pGpyzububCkCS9HtIw3ZfaCNUxd63JqfQCLcB/s640/Mississaugaair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ER7otXF01NM/WL-jdWocTvI/AAAAAAAAFQ0/KHaztog-WUUshl2UEAmTNb9ChXmRtyLdACLcB/s1600/Mississaugaair2.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="430" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ER7otXF01NM/WL-jdWocTvI/AAAAAAAAFQ0/KHaztog-WUUshl2UEAmTNb9ChXmRtyLdACLcB/s640/Mississaugaair2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>60 to 100 people per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>15 to 30 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just
like Montréal has duplexes built over garages which are an adaptation
of its traditional duplex type of housing, anglo-Canada has a modern
adaptation of the old narrow and deep urban home... the snout house.
Thus named because of the protruding garage doors that look like a snout
and reduces front-facing windows to a minimum. Note that the population
density here is uncommonly high considering the number of dwelling
units. We're approaching 4 people per household on average, versus 2,5
on average in Québec single-family housing. I don't know why that is,
but that ratio is high all across Mississauga, at least, in that area.
Is it an ethnocultural community that has unusually high fertility
rates? Is the price of housing pushing people to live with their parents
and children longer? I don't know.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Traditional low-rise apartments (Hamilton)</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XllOvq0aWBM/WL-W2FVmxbI/AAAAAAAAFP0/08UUQGnBQ4gpH7uurS_CFTQYto6f83TRQCLcB/s1600/HamiltonMR1.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="340" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XllOvq0aWBM/WL-W2FVmxbI/AAAAAAAAFP0/08UUQGnBQ4gpH7uurS_CFTQYto6f83TRQCLcB/s640/HamiltonMR1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2FuHxToqw80/WL-W5Jzx5lI/AAAAAAAAFP4/HO6yIoz6_uY1sb24-xW9X2HFqww_KedaACLcB/s1600/HamiltonMR.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="438" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2FuHxToqw80/WL-W5Jzx5lI/AAAAAAAAFP4/HO6yIoz6_uY1sb24-xW9X2HFqww_KedaACLcB/s640/HamiltonMR.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><b>110 to 130 people per hectare</b></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>70 to 90 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is a relatively rare case of an old type of density in an old
Anglo-Canadian city (Hamilton). As the lots are narrow and deep and
buildings are detached, you can see some areas where, among the old
urban homes, you can spot narrow and long apartment building 3 to 6
stories high. However, this process seems to have been interrupted by
the arrival of modern zoning practices and parking requirements. It's
interesting to note the difference between low-rise apartments in Québec
and in Anglo-Canada, with Québec having small low-rise apartments built
wall to wall, often owned by one of the occupants, without the need of a
lot of capital to own it, and Anglo-Canada having bigger apartment
buildings<b> </b>that were probably owned by richer owners who resided somewhere else.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Urban high-rises</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sNfrPHSmd4g/WL-cVwGFZAI/AAAAAAAAFQQ/Ydgsn7-_7DQmji4A7GkQK0w21LKg8TEmwCLcB/s1600/HamiltonHR.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="412" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sNfrPHSmd4g/WL-cVwGFZAI/AAAAAAAAFQQ/Ydgsn7-_7DQmji4A7GkQK0w21LKg8TEmwCLcB/s640/HamiltonHR.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y7IkvOZtss8/WL-cV0xUb9I/AAAAAAAAFQU/wK18fPRCmIUnxrlObAENxVp7THq9SY_GwCLcB/s1600/HamiltonHRair.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="430" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y7IkvOZtss8/WL-cV0xUb9I/AAAAAAAAFQU/wK18fPRCmIUnxrlObAENxVp7THq9SY_GwCLcB/s640/HamiltonHRair.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><b>250 to 400 people per hectare</b></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>200 to 300 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I
know of nothing else that can showcase the lack of middle housing in
Anglo-Canada than this. High-rise apartment buildings carved out of old
neighborhoods of urban homes, resulting in 2-story urban homes being
next to 20+-story apartment buildings with underground parking. This is
probably the stuff of nightmare of most NIMBYs... and even of a ton of
urbanists, I suppose. I would be curious to know the value of the
remaining homes next to the high-rises, to see if their value is higher
or lower than similar homes a bit further away, just to test the theory
that high constructions depress the value of neighboring low-rise
single-family properties. Anyway, very high density nonetheless, almost
Paris-level density in some areas.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Vancouverism (do I need to say where?)</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q6b8h5Cvbr8/WL-d2ezy2HI/AAAAAAAAFQg/xbtTgVLdcj4tZSiQLF6dj3VIjAEjT3EGwCLcB/s1600/Vancouverism.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="450" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q6b8h5Cvbr8/WL-d2ezy2HI/AAAAAAAAFQg/xbtTgVLdcj4tZSiQLF6dj3VIjAEjT3EGwCLcB/s640/Vancouverism.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a90RkTJNkcs/WL-d2Q41IOI/AAAAAAAAFQk/u72z7Bcejkk-blqnw3m7FPZZTOpwy_5cwCLcB/s1600/VancouverismAir.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="364" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a90RkTJNkcs/WL-d2Q41IOI/AAAAAAAAFQk/u72z7Bcejkk-blqnw3m7FPZZTOpwy_5cwCLcB/s640/VancouverismAir.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> 500<b> to 800 people per hectare</b></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>350 to 500 dwelling units per hectare</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Vancouverism
is the name used to describe the style of development that forms the
basic pattern of Vancouver's downtown. Funnily enough, it's not unlike
the previous chaotic development in Hamilton in that it combines
low-rise and high-rise developments on the same bloc. The difference is
that Vancouverism is more ordered than what we see in Hamilton's central
neighborhood, building lines are more respected, the placement of the
skyscrapers resembles a checkerboard, to prevent buildings from cutting
light and air access to one another and to avoid a trench feeling for
people on the street. The density level is probably among the highest in
the Western world, equaling or topping the dense neighborhoods of
Barcelona and Paris. This is Manhattan Upper East Side levels of
density. The main issue of such development is cost, as skyscrapers are
not affordable to build at all. Vancouver's out of control housing
market makes such development possible, but that may not be the case
everywhere.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Conclusion</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK,
so this was just a catalog of density of different development patterns
seen in Québec and the rest of Canada. I don't claim this list to be
exhaustive. I think it may be useful to have such a catalog to know what
different levels of density look like and to lay to rest some ideas.
Thus, both the idea that you HAVE to go very high to achieve
walkability-supporting density (when even 2-story developments with
detached buildings can approach that threshold) and that there is no
point to go very high because lower lot coverage means you won't get
more floor space are wrong.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-68907138433503057842016-12-31T04:17:00.003-05:002017-05-09T13:06:13.339-04:00Building affordable housing: what can work in urban areas<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK, I've been away long, just busy and without much motivation lately, with this follow-up hanging on me, preventing me from starting other posts. Anyway, if anyone still follows my blog, here is this article I wanted to finish before 2016 is over...<br />
<br />
...so in the last article, I pointed out that the economics of building new housing is not really favorable to affordable housing. If you only had construction costs to contend with, it would be possible to have reasonably large affordable housing, however, in places where land prices tend to be high, these impose a premium that make it really hard to build affordable housing of decent size.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, the post-WWII idea of affordable housing, the starter home for young families, is based on a "grow home" model, the idea that houses be sold with the basement or attic unfinished, with the expectation that, as the family grows, so will the house, thus keeping the initial price low but allowing for expansions further on. This worked well in greenfield developments, but the problem is that, once "grown" the house cannot be ungrown for the next generation. So a "grow home" is only affordable once, then it gets progressively more expensive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All of that leads to a simple question: is it even possible to have affordable housing in an urban area, where land is expensive and greenfield development impossible?<br />
<br />
So let's see a few approaches that can make economic sense...<br />
<br />
<h3>
Very high increase of density, without going too high</h3>
Replacing existing buildings by higher density ones is the traditional approach to increasing density. However, this isn't a silver bullet. There are two main pitfalls to that approach.<br />
<br />
The first pitfall is if the density of the proposed building isn't high enough. That's because developers who want to redevelop a property have to compete to buy that property with people who would want to buy it to live in it.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AJZ9eYq9BuY/WGdNCdihpJI/AAAAAAAAFFE/fLHG-18P7RYlHOt_1KhoHTcw13_VLBPgACLcB/s1600/Logic.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AJZ9eYq9BuY/WGdNCdihpJI/AAAAAAAAFFE/fLHG-18P7RYlHOt_1KhoHTcw13_VLBPgACLcB/s640/Logic.JPG" width="488" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Two major types of buyers competing for a given property</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
That means that the minimal price a developer could pay is the market value of the building, because if he's not willing to pay that much, a potential resident will just outbid him and buy the house to live in. And usually, if a developer wants to build something, it's because the area is reasonably desirable and the market value isn't too bad. That means that the land price the developer has to pay is AT LEAST equal to the market value of the current building which is usually AT LEAST equal to the construction cost, to which you have to add destruction costs (not that high usually) and the construction cost of the new building.<br />
<br />
So let's say we take this house...<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OK8QmGawEgA/WGdUkbI2CZI/AAAAAAAAFFg/PvizxIneYLQZibd2XqZSy_aHlyOR5mIrQCLcB/s1600/MedianHouse.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OK8QmGawEgA/WGdUkbI2CZI/AAAAAAAAFFg/PvizxIneYLQZibd2XqZSy_aHlyOR5mIrQCLcB/s640/MedianHouse.JPG" width="412" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Which could be worth 270 000$ in market value.<br />
<br />
And we want to replace it with this triplex:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wATJ6tEFLaM/WGdT6ztcVGI/AAAAAAAAFFY/wVn4qVwRfxYp1UPjBdFqwKkYcSB-IXPJgCLcB/s1600/3plex.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wATJ6tEFLaM/WGdT6ztcVGI/AAAAAAAAFFY/wVn4qVwRfxYp1UPjBdFqwKkYcSB-IXPJgCLcB/s640/3plex.JPG" width="422" /></a></div>
So let's estimate things...<br />
<br />
The current house's market value is 270 000$, let's say 30 000$ for removing the current house and 300 000$ for building the triplex. That's 600 000$, let's add another 10% for profit margin, that's about 660 000$, while the building has about 2 900 square feet of livable space. That's about 227$ per square foot, or 220 000$ per 969-sf 2-BR apartments.<br />
<br />
That's not necessarily very affordable, especially when you consider that this replaces a 3-BR 1 260-sf house with another 1260-sf of basement that sells for 270 000$.<br />
<br />
Now, if you could replace the house with an 8-plex like this one...<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BwOhGzBDFgI/WGdVsmAg8jI/AAAAAAAAFFs/vsBL24S4U-c3Rokn7MOU1eYYx2CEZ_mlQCLcB/s1600/8-plex.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BwOhGzBDFgI/WGdVsmAg8jI/AAAAAAAAFFs/vsBL24S4U-c3Rokn7MOU1eYYx2CEZ_mlQCLcB/s640/8-plex.JPG" width="506" /></a></div>
Then we add the value of the house (270 000$) and the destruction cost (30 000$) and the construction cost (1 030 000$), that comes up to 1 330 000$, plus 10% of profits, that's about 1 500 000$. That comes out to about 150 $ per square foot, or a bit under 200 000$ for a 1200-sf, 3-BR apartment. That's more reasonable.<br />
<br />
Of course, that's ignoring factors like parking minimums, regulatory costs of rezoning and the like.<br />
<br />
The saving grace would be a house in disrepair, a "fixer-upper" which market value would be lower than similarly-sized houses. Thus allowing for a lesser increase of density to have affordable housing as the effective land price is significantly lower.<br />
<br />
The other pitfall is when the actual building is high enough density that the only way to add density in any significant manner is to go for a mid-rise or high-rise (4+ stories) building, which is significantly more expensive to build as they require concrete, elevators, water sprinklers, and other elements. So if the cost of construction of the new building alone is 200$ per square foot, that imposes a high threshold for housing prices.<br />
<br />
So another approach might be needed.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Subdividing</h3>
So building a new building in replacement of an existing building is not a great proposal economically speaking. But what if you used the second of the three Rs? Reuse. After all, if you have a perfectly suitable building, maybe you don't need to destroy it to increase density. How? Well, by subdividing the existing building. Simply rearrange the interior of a large home to create many units out of just one.<br />
<br />
For example, here is a house that could easily be subdivided into a duplex:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xeNLosHgcIk/WGdbxgobmXI/AAAAAAAAFF8/FyCpk8pNNlkiAQ8YUWTg-VA8qFeZHXtbQCLcB/s1600/ElevatedRanch.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xeNLosHgcIk/WGdbxgobmXI/AAAAAAAAFF8/FyCpk8pNNlkiAQ8YUWTg-VA8qFeZHXtbQCLcB/s640/ElevatedRanch.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A raised ranch in Québec</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This building has a door that opens on a small lobby which has 2 sets of stairs, one that goes up to the upper story, the other that does down to a half-buried floor.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BXz8g_fNKkU/WGdcotyer0I/AAAAAAAAFGE/DvDNjT1HGG8mPxKIZOpPhkrt-P8fUgSIgCLcB/s1600/RanchInterior.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="490" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BXz8g_fNKkU/WGdcotyer0I/AAAAAAAAFGE/DvDNjT1HGG8mPxKIZOpPhkrt-P8fUgSIgCLcB/s640/RanchInterior.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
If you put a wall in the middle of the lobby and add another door to the outside, you separate the floors, possibly creating two 2-BR or 3-BR units. So if you build a raised ranch with an unfinished basement, you can finish the basement, maybe for 70 000 or 80 000$, then convert the house into a duplex.<br />
<br />
What if the house is too small to be subdivided into reasonably big units? Well, buildings can have additions built to them. You can build additions next to them, or even add another story in some cases. This seems to have been done relatively frequently in older American towns, like these examples in Lowell, Massachussetts:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W0L7mIgd0tM/WGdeYFCpDKI/AAAAAAAAFGU/bk6TfUrTbHcjLqi_Iw4E-jAcOdjreDEDQCLcB/s1600/LowellMA1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="380" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W0L7mIgd0tM/WGdeYFCpDKI/AAAAAAAAFGU/bk6TfUrTbHcjLqi_Iw4E-jAcOdjreDEDQCLcB/s640/LowellMA1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DWvmsr5LgcA/WGdeYGvPxlI/AAAAAAAAFGQ/5P1JR6uqSCk7-lJTri8W-BRWqIjKJsGWgCLcB/s1600/LowellMA2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="442" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DWvmsr5LgcA/WGdeYGvPxlI/AAAAAAAAFGQ/5P1JR6uqSCk7-lJTri8W-BRWqIjKJsGWgCLcB/s640/LowellMA2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
As you can see, you have these long elongated buildings, often with dissimilar roofs and the front part of the building looks like a self-standing house, which is probably how they started. Additions aren't that cheap to add, as they are more complicated to build than a new building and so require more labor. I've seen estimates that they can cost 200$ per square foot to build in the case of an additional story. But the advantage of such additions is that the land cost is nil, unlike new constructions, since it's an addition, not a replacement.<br />
<br />
Additions are also not a magic bullet, they are limited by zoning, like everything else, and the structure of the building must be able to accommodate the addition.<br />
<br />
<h3>
New building on the same lot</h3>
This is a reasonably frequent avenue used in many cities like Vancouver, taking the form of the laneway house for example. A laneway house is a possibility afforded by a lane behind rows of houses, as a second house can be built on the same lot, just facing the rear alley rather than the street. Like additions, the advantage of this approach is a nil land cost, since the owner can build it without replacing the existing building. In a way, it can be seen as a particular type of subdividing, where one subdivides the lot rather than the building.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Boarding houses</h3>
Boarding houses are a practice common in traditional American cities but that is now rarely seen. Basically, once upon a time, when an homeowner had empty bedrooms in their houses, for example, because their children were grown up and had moved out, they would advertise these bedrooms to rent. And thus, single people looking for affordable housing could rent out these bedrooms, often with meals being offered as part of the renting contract. That way, the occupancy of single-family houses could remain high, the "empty nesters" phenomenon didn't occur much and affordable housing options were available to singles, and maybe even some couples. This also solved an income issue for older people who were retired before the institution of government pensions... Hmm, interesting hypothesis: one of the reasons for the disappearance of boarding houses may be that government pensions reduced the need for older homeowners to find new income sources.<br />
<br />
Famous boarding house occupants are Sherlock Holmes and John Watson, who rented out bedrooms in Ms Hudson's personal house.<br />
<br />
What potential does renting out empty bedrooms have?<br />
<br />
Well, going by the Canadian census, I estimate there are as many as 11 million unoccupied bedrooms in occupied dwellings in Canada. Enough to absorb a 30% increase in the population. Of course, most of these bedrooms may not be in desirable locations, but even in the city of Vancouver (NOT including the suburbs), there are probably around 82 000 unoccupied bedrooms in occupied dwellings, enough to increase the population by nearly 14%. In the city of Toronto, there are 340 000 unoccupied bedrooms, again, enough to absorb a 14% rise in population without building a single new home.<br />
<br />
In older suburbs, the amount of unoccupied bedrooms is amazing. In my childhood's suburb of Boucherville, there are at least 47 420 bedrooms:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MiM0yedeS_k/WGdvBcn_CPI/AAAAAAAAFG4/YJOr3OrzWPAO9oMEg-vMANlQ-H4GqAn5gCLcB/s1600/BRDwellingBoucherville.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MiM0yedeS_k/WGdvBcn_CPI/AAAAAAAAFG4/YJOr3OrzWPAO9oMEg-vMANlQ-H4GqAn5gCLcB/s1600/BRDwellingBoucherville.JPG" /></a></div>
Meanwhile, there are 40 753 people living in the city, and 10 890 couples, married or common law. If we suppose couples sleep in the same bedroom, that means at most there are 29 863 occupied bedrooms, leaving 17 557 bedrooms unoccupied in occupied dwellings. That's enough to house a population increase of 43%, with a similar rise in density.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Filtering</h3>
Filtering is a phenomenon where the construction industry in a metropolitan region is able to build sufficient amounts of housing to outpace the growth in population and households. Basically, supply grows faster than demand. In such a situation, even if newly built units are not affordable on their own, they may lead to a decline in market value of older units that are not as desirable, therefore their owners who are renting them out or trying to sell them have to lower their asking prices to find a buyer or a renter.<br />
<br />
This is not that common in the major cities of Western countries, because though fertility rates have fallen, governments have compensated that fall with increases in mass immigration, and immigrants tend to gather in the major metropolitan areas. This factor adds up on the rural-to-urban migration and makes it often unlikely to see demand growing slower than supply, as the local industry fails to keep up with the population growth. The temporal reality of supply and demand and industry output must not be neglected.<br />
<br />
However, it does happen in Japan, as these graphs I made from condo (mansshon in Japanese real estate parlance) prices per square foot in central areas of Sapporo and Tokyo reveal. Data from suumo.jp:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h8qxa0J9SQ8/WGdon7YCh-I/AAAAAAAAFGk/i4mGCI8B0FgRHlm7onXqmc-65AxkgmUPACLcB/s1600/SapporoMansshon.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="514" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h8qxa0J9SQ8/WGdon7YCh-I/AAAAAAAAFGk/i4mGCI8B0FgRHlm7onXqmc-65AxkgmUPACLcB/s640/SapporoMansshon.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f7HziNihwVY/WGdonzrbXoI/AAAAAAAAFGo/LwyEXaaYURM_b19xiScj0IHYsRudYnkdwCLcB/s1600/ShibuyaMansshon.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="522" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f7HziNihwVY/WGdonzrbXoI/AAAAAAAAFGo/LwyEXaaYURM_b19xiScj0IHYsRudYnkdwCLcB/s640/ShibuyaMansshon.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
When density in a city is high enough, filtering is the only approach that works, because subdividing would result in too small units for the needs of people and the current density makes it impossible to economically replace current buildings with walk-up low-rise buildings.<br />
<h3>
An alternative to the "grow home": the adaptable home</h3>
Finally, let's look at my own counter-proposal to the "grow home" model, that I've already derided. A reminder, the "grow home model" is the following:<br />
<br />
<i>First, a cheap home is built with an unfinished basement and/or attic, which is bought by a young couple.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>As the family grows, the attic or basement is finished, or the house likewise improved, to accommodate the needs of the family at its peak (teenage or young adult children still in the home).</i><br />
<i>After the children leave, the parents still occupy the fully improved, now very valuable home.</i><br />
<br />
<i>When the parents have enough, they sell the house, at its current market value... likely twice what it was worth when it was built, because of all the improvement and additional living space.</i><br />
<br />
So the house starts cheap, but doesn't remain cheap much longer... what to do?<br />
<br />
Well, let me present the alternative, the "adaptable" home.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ld7gBvFc7FY/WGdyS1BnCwI/AAAAAAAAFHM/wGn7FEj3jOQzVm3GngO_Src6f1o_EpvJQCLcB/s1600/AdaptableHome1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="442" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ld7gBvFc7FY/WGdyS1BnCwI/AAAAAAAAFHM/wGn7FEj3jOQzVm3GngO_Src6f1o_EpvJQCLcB/s640/AdaptableHome1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VS8zPziAsB0/WGdyS-KeqSI/AAAAAAAAFHI/B3H8OHya9_IbC-oAs44WBG3aDQYUmuqhQCLcB/s1600/AdaptableHome2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="304" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VS8zPziAsB0/WGdyS-KeqSI/AAAAAAAAFHI/B3H8OHya9_IbC-oAs44WBG3aDQYUmuqhQCLcB/s640/AdaptableHome2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6sSxq-ckYA4/WGdySxtPVTI/AAAAAAAAFHE/DXeRLKJVZkErDBVKemZ2C6AOGO-t4vSAgCLcB/s1600/AdaptableHome3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="408" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6sSxq-ckYA4/WGdySxtPVTI/AAAAAAAAFHE/DXeRLKJVZkErDBVKemZ2C6AOGO-t4vSAgCLcB/s640/AdaptableHome3.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The two first look like duplexes, they have two doors side-by-side. The second looks like a triplex, with two doors on the first story, one going upstairs, the other opening on the 1st story unit. But here's the thing, the two side-by-side doors can in fact be easily converted into one single door, and the lobbies on the other side of them can be merged by removing the wall that separates them, thus integrating the stairway of the upper or lower unit into the other unit. This effectively merges the units together.<br />
<br />
The building can thus be easily merged or subdivided as needed.<br />
<br />
Raised ranches fit the bill, as does the triplex shown on this very page, since it has two adjacent doors that could be easily modified to merge both top units.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e83VMyKD8OA/WGd0jzngPDI/AAAAAAAAFHY/NrgfXVTWQowidXpJG7ymAyWOBf0m50EVwCLcB/s1600/TriplexAdaptable.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="538" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e83VMyKD8OA/WGd0jzngPDI/AAAAAAAAFHY/NrgfXVTWQowidXpJG7ymAyWOBf0m50EVwCLcB/s640/TriplexAdaptable.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Imagine this but with one door instead of two on top of the stairs</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
So the life of these buildings can be the following.<br />
<br />
<i>First, they are built complete, all floors finished, and sold to a family that will occupy it. The family is small, so it first put the building into its duplex or triplex form: living in one unit and renting out the other(s).</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>As the family grows, it may lack space, in this case, the owner warns the renters to move out as they plan to merge two units to create one big 4- to 6-bedroom unit to accommodate their growing family.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>As the children leave, the owners may decide the unit is now too big for them, they can then easily separate the units anew and rent out the now unoccupied unit.</i><br />
<br />
This provides needed affordable housing to a city and a retirement supplementary income to the owner. Though the initial capital cost is higher, the revenue from renting out the other unit(s) more than makes up for the higher cost. In fact, if I compared a "grow home" scenario of a 200 000$ home which has its basement finished for 80 000$ 7 years afters its initial sale to an adaptable home that is built with a finished basement unit for 280 000$, renting it out for 7 years at a price of 600$ a month for a 2- or 3-bedroom basement unit, then converting into a single house, losing the revenue. The adaptable home is paid back 2 whole years before the grow home, thanks to the rent income.<br />
<br />
In fact, an adaptable home can even start out as a grow home that ends up being subdivided later in the life of the family that occupies it.<br />
<br />
The main issue here is purely regulatory. An adaptable home goes from single-family to multi-family and vice versa during its life, adapting to the needs of the owners. This would be illegal in most cities, and is just further proof of the idiocy of the current North American zoning practices.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-48277984505098311382016-08-23T22:02:00.000-04:002017-06-27T00:48:22.685-04:00Building affordable housing, where has the entry-level house gone?<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of the biggest topics of discussion in urbanist circles, and even beyond that, is certainly affordable housing. This debate is very politically fraught, even the term "affordable housing" is up for grab, with some people seeming to define it simply as "below-market price" housing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, much has been written about the planning reforms that we need to achieve more affordable housing. But not much has been said about what affordable housing actually looks like. Sometimes, it feels like some people think that affordable housing is run-of-the-mill housing, just cheaper, and that's not how it works. You wouldn't expect a cheap KIA car to be equal in size, features and quality to a large Cadillac sedan... except for a third of the price.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let's look at what affordable housing actually is, in a functioning market. OK, sure, any housing can be "affordable" to the resident if it's subsidized, but since housing is such an expensive spending post, subsidizing all housing just isn't really plausible.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Building affordable homes</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this era where planners love to build neighborhoods from scratch to a final state, believing that what is planned is what will be built and what will remain there forever, the idea of adding affordable housing is often first conceived as the idea of building housing that is affordable from the get-go.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Now, theoretically, any housing can be "affordable" if subsidized, either directly or by regulation that forces the price of some units to be maintained lower than market value. But let's ignore that possibility here, let's look at what affordable housing can really be. Without subsidies, developers have to recoup the cost of constructing homes from those who buy the homes, so a look at the actual cost of building a house should provide a glimpse into what affordable housing can be.<br />
<br />
Like any project, the first step is to establish a budget. For simplicity's sake, I will suppose that an affordable housing option is 3 times gross household earning, given my sources, all the amounts will be in Canadian dollars, adjust accordingly for American figures.<br />
<br />
OK, so in Canada, the median household income is 69 000$. The low-income threshold for an household of 2 people is around 25 000$. So, as a gross estimate, an affordable median housing unit should be about 210 000$, and an affordable housing option for a poor household should be 75 000$.<br />
<br />
So, what does that buy you? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll use a catalog of housing plans in Québec which provides estimated construction costs for their different plans to find out. You can check out the website at http://www.planimage.com/fr/. First, I'll restrict myself to single-family structures.<br />
<br />
So, a 210 000$-house would be something like this 3-bedroom 1 260-square-foot bungalow, with an unfinished basement that offers the possibility of doubling the living space (so total potential living space of 2 520 square feet).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AjcMNZGWX6Y/V7FBb4JquhI/AAAAAAAAE7I/W27d7OcNw9ELKa4vEdxHusxIipBUNXYAgCLcB/s1600/MedianHouse.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AjcMNZGWX6Y/V7FBb4JquhI/AAAAAAAAE7I/W27d7OcNw9ELKa4vEdxHusxIipBUNXYAgCLcB/s640/MedianHouse.JPG" width="412" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Or a 3-bedroom 2-story house with 1 546 square feet of living space with an unfinished basement of 773 square feet, for a total potential living space of 2 319 square feet.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hUe1zd9htnw/V7FBzp9qZhI/AAAAAAAAE7M/u06Lf-hQxRwL0neJnGe0eVJ4azzPzh1KwCLcB/s1600/MedianHouse2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hUe1zd9htnw/V7FBzp9qZhI/AAAAAAAAE7M/u06Lf-hQxRwL0neJnGe0eVJ4azzPzh1KwCLcB/s640/MedianHouse2.JPG" width="418" /></a></div>
<br />
On the other hand, what does 75 000$ buy you? Well, looking at the catalog, houses don't even go that low, the most affordable house model is a 2-story 910-square-foot house with 3 small bedrooms and an unfinished basement that can increase total living space to about 1 300 square feet.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LYyBNmz55XA/V7FGjb8lHLI/AAAAAAAAE7Y/PIjkacBYK5wiyC_1xuLC1AzidYSPPBzwgCLcB/s1600/MostAffHouse2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LYyBNmz55XA/V7FGjb8lHLI/AAAAAAAAE7Y/PIjkacBYK5wiyC_1xuLC1AzidYSPPBzwgCLcB/s640/MostAffHouse2.JPG" width="416" /></a></div>
<br />
If we look at bungalows only, then the cheapest bungalow model is a bit pricier and a bit smaller (768 square feet), but with a potential of over 1 500 square feet after the basement is finished.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YOpcR2F6QDk/V7FGzjMIGbI/AAAAAAAAE7c/IIksZF5rM9I-N_A65iFfuHP-6RKJN-iowCLcB/s1600/MostAffHouse1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YOpcR2F6QDk/V7FGzjMIGbI/AAAAAAAAE7c/IIksZF5rM9I-N_A65iFfuHP-6RKJN-iowCLcB/s640/MostAffHouse1.JPG" width="432" /></a></div>
<br />
But all is not lost, because filed under "chalet" or "secondary homes" meant to be only occasionally used homes in the countryside, we can find the following. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cUYsd_exGzw/V7FKLefp4oI/AAAAAAAAE7s/LVBbcZvgRh85aOHsPv1wIzngArvlQxG8wCLcB/s1600/Chalet1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cUYsd_exGzw/V7FKLefp4oI/AAAAAAAAE7s/LVBbcZvgRh85aOHsPv1wIzngArvlQxG8wCLcB/s640/Chalet1.JPG" width="432" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zyEWSqrh4YE/V7FKLXZaodI/AAAAAAAAE7o/YCRpSXKzQhY2ilX8vusAYvT4Z9eclSH_QCLcB/s1600/Chalet2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zyEWSqrh4YE/V7FKLXZaodI/AAAAAAAAE7o/YCRpSXKzQhY2ilX8vusAYvT4Z9eclSH_QCLcB/s640/Chalet2.JPG" width="430" /></a></div>
<br />
These are different from the bungalows above in that they are lacking in basements, meant to be built on concrete slabs. Which means that these do not have expandable living spaces. Note that unlike the previous homes, where the construction cost per square foot was around 100$, the small houses actually have higher construction costs per square foot, around 150$.<br />
<br />
Still, this shows that it is theoretically possible to build affordable housing in North America, even in the form of single-family houses, housing that can be affordable even for people at the threshold of poverty. And indeed, such small houses can sometimes be seen in Japan in clusters that seem to indicate public housing developments.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_b7x9WfeAVE/V7FPYf0FZMI/AAAAAAAAE78/W8USLPaM7HUkwCL0fSULR3GN4f1dIfHNgCLcB/s1600/HokkaidoPublicHousing.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="332" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_b7x9WfeAVE/V7FPYf0FZMI/AAAAAAAAE78/W8USLPaM7HUkwCL0fSULR3GN4f1dIfHNgCLcB/s640/HokkaidoPublicHousing.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Probable public housing developments in Hokkaido, Japan, note the number on the buildings, typical of Japanese public housing developments</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_keSoOlpTrE/V7FPYezOrQI/AAAAAAAAE8A/9JMxlizuX7M4HAsDP9OUwYkCsO0m8MtlwCLcB/s1600/ObihiroPublicHousing.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="296" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_keSoOlpTrE/V7FPYezOrQI/AAAAAAAAE8A/9JMxlizuX7M4HAsDP9OUwYkCsO0m8MtlwCLcB/s640/ObihiroPublicHousing.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Small 1-story houses in Obihiro</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Of course, there is always the option of multi-family developments, and the same site provides a range of low-rise options for multi-family housing.<br />
<br />
This triplex offers three 2-bedroom 950-sf units for about 300 000$ (around 100$/sf)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8IxjuHaKsLA/V7FRP_Ib5HI/AAAAAAAAE8U/e-GgekroR0wtuiO5gyVhxtHC_un8Kw6WQCLcB/s1600/3plex.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8IxjuHaKsLA/V7FRP_Ib5HI/AAAAAAAAE8U/e-GgekroR0wtuiO5gyVhxtHC_un8Kw6WQCLcB/s640/3plex.JPG" width="422" /></a></div>
<br />
This 4-plex offers four 2-bedroom units, each 910 square feet, for 383 000$, or about 100$ per square foot too.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xFQdKQNjfXw/V7FRPsmrElI/AAAAAAAAE8M/R1Gbjtq50jcPgIAWpMghMUcD7xa_jx5lwCLcB/s1600/4-plex.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xFQdKQNjfXw/V7FRPsmrElI/AAAAAAAAE8M/R1Gbjtq50jcPgIAWpMghMUcD7xa_jx5lwCLcB/s640/4-plex.JPG" width="432" /></a></div>
<br />
This 6-plex offers six 2-bedroom units each about 1 000 square-foot big for 604 000$, or about 100$ per square foot. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-M3DMqLcJwbQ/V7FRP7vfzHI/AAAAAAAAE8Q/rVI_ub8zZ7w7ofTvAIu309RWqk06O0AXwCLcB/s1600/6-plex.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-M3DMqLcJwbQ/V7FRP7vfzHI/AAAAAAAAE8Q/rVI_ub8zZ7w7ofTvAIu309RWqk06O0AXwCLcB/s640/6-plex.JPG" width="478" /></a></div>
All of these are low-rise, walk-up buildings, all offer similar construction costs per square foot to the house models. So theoretically, it is certainly possible to build affordable housing for the middle-class and even the poor. Caveat: construction costs do vary from place to place, the biggest variable being the price of labor, as most of a house's building cost is labor, not materials.<br />
<br />
Note that all these buildings have common characteristics of being low-rise, of being wooden-framed structures, of having little public areas (for multifamily units) and lacking elevators or any complex mechanical system. From what I've read, this is the most affordable type of housing one can build (at least per square foot). As long as you satisfy these criteria and do not have a tiny building, the construction cost per square foot tends to be roughly the same, around 100$ per square foot.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, high-rise constructions that require concrete frames, elevators, sprinklers, plenty of mechanical fan ventilation of inner areas and units, etc... tend, from what I've read, to cost 50 to 100% more to build than the low-rise units. Not only that, but these mechanical systems need to be maintained, which adds to the cost over time. So if an household can afford only a 700 square-foot apartment in a low-rise unit, maybe it could afford only a 350 to 450 square-foot unit in an high-rise.<br />
<br />
I know, I know, a building's cost is not limited to construction cost. So let's talk about this.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Land cost</h3>
You can't just build housing in the air, you have to acquire a plot of land first. Since land is not built, but rather pre-owned, it's all a matter of supply and demand, without construction costs as a yard stick to estimate value in a functional market. However, not all land is worth the same, the desirability of the location varies and creates submarkets. For example, if you have subway lines in a city, land within walking distance of a subway station may well be a submarket for land, and that type of land may well be in shortage even if there's plenty of undeveloped land waiting for buyers all around the city, land that just happens to not be near subways.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, a building should have to pay for the municipal infrastructure needed to link it to a city's street grid and public services (drinking water, sewers). I can't find good figures to estimate the cost of these, I've seen the cost of entire street reconstruction of around 5 000$ per linear meter, but construction may actually be cheaper than reconstruction in this case.<br />
<br />
So, anyway, to be able to build affordable housing, you also have to find affordable land, which means undesirable land that is in high supply. Usually, such land is found mostly on the edge of built areas, leading to the "drive 'til you qualify" phenomenon. Alternatively, you have to find a way to cut down on the land consumption per unit, have smaller lots or more units on a single lot.<br />
<br />
Since the value of land is linked to the supply of it, it would stand to reason that greenbelt regulations or agricultural land protection laws that forbid development on land restrict the supply and thus make land on the fringe more expensive. There is also a matter of speculation, if land appreciates and taxes on land are low, speculators may believe it best to put off putting their land on the market to let their value climb more. If there are lots of speculators, this can artificially constrain the supply of land too, so putting higher taxes on land to force speculators to put their property on the market faster can help land prices go down.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Building affordable housing... a losing approach?</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All in all, building housing for the middle-class ought to be possible, if you select an affordable housing type in a low-value location and/or on a small lot, or low-rise apartments in a likewise affordable location. However, it is hard to find a way to do so for the poor, especially once you take into account transport costs in areas that require cars to get around. In general, it would be best to build along existing rapid transit lines, but these are unfortunately too rare in North America, especially lines that extend beyond the urban core. To really find affordable housing without subsidies, we have to find other alternatives than building housing from scratch.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Still, why is affordable housing for the middle-class, so common in the post-WWII era, so rare nowadays?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h3>
The case of the post-WWII entry-level house </h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The decades following WWII in most of North America, and to a lesser extent, Europe, saw the rapid propagation of affordable single-family houses that would become the homes of an entire generation. Even families with just one income-earner could afford single-family homes. What was the recipe for that era? How did they achieve this?<br />
<br />
Well, construction cost-wise, the houses built in that era were not particularly expensive to build, they were cookie-cutter wooden-frame small houses which were often only 800 to 1000 square-foot big, generally sold with unfinished basements or attics to cut down on costs while retaining the possibility for expansions.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-x1B8sS-B3Wg/V7zsawgSjnI/AAAAAAAAE84/jjSwmyYgnaooy2u6jcJWdVjj3DllTOZ4ACLcB/s1600/levittown.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-x1B8sS-B3Wg/V7zsawgSjnI/AAAAAAAAE84/jjSwmyYgnaooy2u6jcJWdVjj3DllTOZ4ACLcB/s640/levittown.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Levittown, NY houses, the base models were about 10-meter wide and 8-meter deep, for a floor area of 80 square meters, around 880 square feet, without basement (built on concrete slabs) but with an unfinished attic for future expansion. Many houses have been so modified they're barely recognizable nowadays.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
These houses were made as affordable as possible, with the idea that once the main house is paid for, the owners could modify it to fit the needs of their growing family.<br />
<br />
Houses such as these are still affordable to build today... it's just a matter of finding cheap enough land.<br />
<br />
And that is the single most crucial factor of the post-WWII starter home, which is hard to reproduce. Houses built in this era were built in perhaps the single greatest period of land glut in the history of urban development. This oversupply of land for urban development was the result of technological upheaval in the form of mass motorization and of the rapid creation of the interstate/freeway system. Though the freeways were made to help rapid movement from city to city, they were rapidly taken over by commuters who used them to be able to access cheaper land while maintaining access to the jobs and services of the cities, which then still held most of the jobs and businesses.<br />
<br />
Before cars, the fastest mode of travel inside cities was transit, which meant that people had to find land within reasonable walking distance of a streetcar line. That limited the amount of land each streetcar line made available to development and encouraged a still somewhat dense development form...<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YIsRycJZ1WE/V7zx3xBvQiI/AAAAAAAAE9I/jzrRQCU7LCQEFNPrDjPAyEAIz2CNFEj0gCLcB/s1600/StreetcarSuburbChicago2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="372" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YIsRycJZ1WE/V7zx3xBvQiI/AAAAAAAAE9I/jzrRQCU7LCQEFNPrDjPAyEAIz2CNFEj0gCLcB/s640/StreetcarSuburbChicago2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Streetcar suburb of Chicago</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
... once the middle-class started acquiring cars, their travel speed increased tremendously. Once limited to 10 mph on transit lines, they could now drive at 20 mph on city streets and even faster on rural roads. Towns that used to be self-contained cities became suburbs of bigger cities as cars reduced travel time to mere minutes between towns separated by 5 or 6 miles. People no longer needed to live in the same city they worked, if land was cheaper in the next town over, they could go there.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IaDXk0C-wr8/V7z00Mr9XyI/AAAAAAAAE9U/9Ct3Acon7jQFpESaGWuJMRfDCq8x5TekwCLcB/s1600/StreetcarEra.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="510" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IaDXk0C-wr8/V7z00Mr9XyI/AAAAAAAAE9U/9Ct3Acon7jQFpESaGWuJMRfDCq8x5TekwCLcB/s640/StreetcarEra.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Land within easy reach of a major city in the streetcar era, with the streetcar lines in black</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-abMh4b0Xs1g/V7z09ngDUrI/AAAAAAAAE9Y/X_HJZ2ObeVkrOk9KLKLUxo8NTuWYIT9JACLcB/s1600/CarEra.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="464" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-abMh4b0Xs1g/V7z09ngDUrI/AAAAAAAAE9Y/X_HJZ2ObeVkrOk9KLKLUxo8NTuWYIT9JACLcB/s640/CarEra.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In the car era, the land within easy reach of the city has been increased significantly, creating a huge glut of land to develop in the suburbs</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The construction of the freeways made this even truer. Now, distances that might have taken a day of walking to cross could be done in 30 minutes. This addition of land to develop on the market brought the price of land way down, at the same time that the Green Revolution made farm lands no longer as essential as before, since the productivity of each acre had been multiplied, and freight could easily feed cities from food grown hundreds of kilometers away.<br />
<br />
Though there was a huge movement to metropolitan areas in that era, the amount of land was so great that land was dirt-cheap.<br />
<br />
So, small cheap houses with unfinished basements and attics, land made nearly worthless due to the glut brought about by cars and freeways, these are the ingredients for the era of the cheap "starter" home of the post-WWII period.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Where did the starter home go? </h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The era ended simply because the land glut of the post-WWII era turned into a shortage in many metropolitan areas. While land was cheap, people wasted it with big plots and endless parking lots, but at one point, even the large amount of land started running out. Not only that, but congestion started occurring rapidly because of the spatial inefficiency of private vehicles, reducing travel speed and reducing the land supply. Maintaining speed required building larger and larger freeways and highways, increasing public spending on infrastructure significantly without adequate return on investment. Some areas also implemented greenbelt policies, further constraining land supply.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The dream of a cheap house also came at exponentially higher transport costs, making people depend more and more on oil imported from unsavory overseas regimes. What one didn't spend on housing, one started spending on cars.<br />
<br />
It's important to point out that starter homes are still around in second-tier cities that have not maxed their land or which still support the ever-growing freeway system to keep adding land to develop.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1HdbDUjJxo4/V7z6Ln7vcII/AAAAAAAAE9o/6McaznvKi-8CZKDcQnCOYUkuhKhOUmJ-QCLcB/s1600/AffordableHousingIndianapolis.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="380" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1HdbDUjJxo4/V7z6Ln7vcII/AAAAAAAAE9o/6McaznvKi-8CZKDcQnCOYUkuhKhOUmJ-QCLcB/s640/AffordableHousingIndianapolis.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Starter home built in 2014 in the suburbs of Indianapolis, still affordable for a one-income family</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But what about the existing starter homes built after WWII, aren't they still affordable?<br />
<br />
Well, no. The big problem of a starter home is that it's only cheap when it is first built, because it is barebone. Once the owners start making the house theirs to accommodate the growing needs of the family, the house gets bigger and more luxurious. Every addition to the house results in higher market value because of increased desirability. So once the original owners are ready to move out, the house is no longer a starter home, but a big, well-furnished home from which the owner will expect to recover the costs of remodeling.<br />
<br />
That is the issue of the "starter home" or "grow home" idea. That home is only affordable once, for its first owners. So for every generation to get its "starter home", every generation has to build entirely new neighborhoods in greenfield areas, where land is cheap. When a metropolitan area matures, this ideal no longer works, the greenfield areas are just too far and are disconnected from the city. So, what can be done?<br />
<br />
<h3>
This is long enough...</h3>
I initially wanted to talk about the alternatives for affordable housing in this article, but it's clear it's best if I stop here and write another article. This article only looked at one way of obtaining affordable housing, namely the one way that people tend to obsess about: building housing that is affordable from day one, because of the current supposition that neighborhoods are essentially pieces of art to preserve over the years rather than living and evolving human ecosystems.<br />
<br />
For those wanting to read the follow-up to this article, <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2016/12/building-affordable-housing-remembering.html">click here</a>. </div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-18851679926723881042016-07-24T00:39:00.001-04:002018-07-04T08:56:28.209-04:00City taxes as urban growth policies: choosing the taxes that get you the city you want<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's talk about taxes. Sure, nobody likes paying taxes, and the discussion about them tends to be about their amount, and not how that amount is raised. But that is a wasted opportunity, both as a matter of fairness and as an opportunity to do efficient urban regulation.<br />
<br />
The issue of fairness is simple: a city raises taxes because it provides certain services and to support public infrastructure. Therefore, a city should make sure it raises its taxes on people who use these services most or that require more of it by design, to avoid subsidizing one lifestyle over others.<br />
<br />
On an urban planning level, people, whether they be homeowners, speculators or developers, make economic decisions all the time. Whether to buy, whether to sell, renovate or not, etc... A city is the result of a vast number of economic decisions. Tax policies, by increasing the cost of some options over others, thus influence the final decision people will make, and will change how the city will evolve and look.<br />
<br />
These effects shouldn't be considered necessary evils, they need to be analyzed so that tax policies can be fashioned to obtain desired results. Which is exactly what urban regulations usually seek to achieve, in fact, I think that well-thought-out tax policies can replace a lot of regulations, can achieve roughly the same objectives while requiring a lot less bureaucracy and red tape.<br />
<br />
Let's do a simple thought experiment, there are two paths from A to B, one red path and one green path, though the red path is much more affordable than the green path for the user, the green path is preferable for the community.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hDyDqR1yGQM/V4he9LRxWLI/AAAAAAAAE4g/GweunbDMkXs1BIlK68sJoosfrzq98yxWwCLcB/s1600/RedTapeFormation.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hDyDqR1yGQM/V4he9LRxWLI/AAAAAAAAE4g/GweunbDMkXs1BIlK68sJoosfrzq98yxWwCLcB/s320/RedTapeFormation.JPG" width="255" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because the planner wants people to take the green path, it adds a regulatory hurdle that prevents the straight red path to happen...</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LwYaGPEYbxY/V4he9M19q_I/AAAAAAAAE4c/OXbEcSrmtAMukGO8CqreQ3ZDyOujpC8BwCLcB/s1600/RedTapeFormation2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LwYaGPEYbxY/V4he9M19q_I/AAAAAAAAE4c/OXbEcSrmtAMukGO8CqreQ3ZDyOujpC8BwCLcB/s320/RedTapeFormation2.JPG" width="316" /></a></div>
But people just do a detour to do the red path again, since its cost is still lower than the green path, so the planner sees this and adds another hurdle... <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-adkT5jdBG4U/V4he9I3IshI/AAAAAAAAE4Y/B_xia-zLwi0caYtclItco4qMEo-3CuioACLcB/s1600/RedTapeFormation3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-adkT5jdBG4U/V4he9I3IshI/AAAAAAAAE4Y/B_xia-zLwi0caYtclItco4qMEo-3CuioACLcB/s320/RedTapeFormation3.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
...and another... <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bJGqM8kM96w/V4he9XFQ-yI/AAAAAAAAE4k/NQHkjGXmue4OLAX271eK_S6fpcIi9eAVgCLcB/s1600/RedTapeFormation4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="286" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bJGqM8kM96w/V4he9XFQ-yI/AAAAAAAAE4k/NQHkjGXmue4OLAX271eK_S6fpcIi9eAVgCLcB/s320/RedTapeFormation4.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
...and another... <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZFiGxgtXty0/V4he9clBAcI/AAAAAAAAE4o/ySfgz1Bld9MiUUw2fP7CeWjhRvcu3S3DwCLcB/s1600/RedTapeFormation5.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="290" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZFiGxgtXty0/V4he9clBAcI/AAAAAAAAE4o/ySfgz1Bld9MiUUw2fP7CeWjhRvcu3S3DwCLcB/s320/RedTapeFormation5.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
... and so on. But each hurdle means that the planning authority needs people to review things to ensure compliance, which means bureaucratic costs and red tape. So you can end up with a big bureaucracy and complicated regulations, all of which could have been avoided by putting a higher cost to the red path without forbidding it.<br />
<br />
So, let's take a few steps and analyze a few of the common practices and the result they may have on how cities grow and develop.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Property taxes</h3>
By far the most common municipal tax is a yearly tax on the value of one's property. This is often seen as a fairer way than a lump sum all have to pay because people who own richer, bigger buildings will pay more than people with smaller, cheaper housing, making it kind of a progressive tax.<br />
<br />
Most cities tend to evaluate a property's value as the sum of the land value and the improvement value, then the same tax rate applies to both. (As an aside, I think this is not entirely correct, or at least calling it "land value" leads to confusion, because it supposes that this is the value of the land on its own, which it isn't. But that's for another day...)<br />
<br />
Anyway, the big problem with this approach is that it rewards people who lower the value of their property and punishes people who invest in their property. Who would want to lower the value of their property? Well, speculators would, because they are holding the property to sell to a developer down the line, so they don't care about the improvement value, just the land value, which is what the developer will pay.<br />
<br />
So speculators will pay very low taxes versus property owners who use their property either directly or by renting it out. This allows speculators to be more patient and keep their property off the market for longer, because as long as the value increases faster each year than they pay in property tax, they are better off waiting rather than selling.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hDyDqR1yGQM/V4he9LRxWLI/AAAAAAAAE4g/GweunbDMkXs1BIlK68sJoosfrzq98yxWwCLcB/s1600/RedTapeFormation.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
Another problem can occur if there is a wide area with the same property tax, including walkable inner suburbs and car-centric outer suburbs. In such a situation, people choosing between the two have to balance out housing and transport costs, the inner suburb having more expensive housing but more affordable transport options, the outer suburb having cheaper housing but more expensive transport.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ofNumI8ERcA/V4rQW6Qr6uI/AAAAAAAAE5Q/dVUawAuWHuIJbX5hz7kvKSZjPDZuvS3vwCLcB/s1600/Innersuburb.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="276" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ofNumI8ERcA/V4rQW6Qr6uI/AAAAAAAAE5Q/dVUawAuWHuIJbX5hz7kvKSZjPDZuvS3vwCLcB/s640/Innersuburb.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Inner suburb: expensive housing but affordable transport</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LsXBGj4bYXA/V4rQW9hmvhI/AAAAAAAAE5M/5lskFzai2r4r60o9aCuhmekm_0aDuheZwCLcB/s1600/Outersuburb.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LsXBGj4bYXA/V4rQW9hmvhI/AAAAAAAAE5M/5lskFzai2r4r60o9aCuhmekm_0aDuheZwCLcB/s640/Outersuburb.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Outer suburb: affordable housing but expensive transport</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The issue here is that an inner suburb household may have to pay 50% more in property tax than one in the outer suburb with the same purchasing power and wealth level. This is an issue in Montréal, where following amalgamation, property taxes fall ever more heavily on old streetcar suburbs which have more expensive housing rather than more recent and car-centric suburbs.<br />
<br />
This is one case where having a fragmented metro area can be useful, because if the two suburbs are split into separate cities, then property tax levels may vary between the two.<br />
<br />
So, overall a property tax tends to be useful to tax wealthier households by using housing value as a proxy for wealth, but it tends to encourage speculation and it may result in punishing taxes on the more walkable areas of a city, where housing is more expensive because transport costs are lower.<br />
<br />
There is also an issue of taxing different land uses at different tax rates. Frequently, non-residential uses tend to be taxed at much higher rates than residential uses, because residential property owners are much more numerous than commercial property owners, many of whom don't even live in the city and are not voters. In Montréal for instance, the central city's residential tax rate is 0,66% (0,68% for buildings with 6 units or more) but the commercial rate is 3,19%. This can hurt a city's economy, especially small businesses who struggle more to pay taxes or rents, and this can push commercial and industrial developments to suburbs. <br />
<br />
<h3>
Land value taxation</h3>
This is the tax that Monopoly was made to promote. I'm not kidding. The most famous promoter of this idea was Henry George, an economist who thought that communities prospered when the land is optimally used. It is very similar to a property tax, but in this case, rather than taxing both land and improvement at the same rate, land value is either taxed significantly higher or improvement is just not taxed at all.<br />
<br />
Though this results in very similar tax rates for the average owner than the regular property tax, it impacts owners at the extremes. Notably, it falls with full strength on speculators and parking lot owners who keep the value of the improvement on their lots low, waiting for a good offer for their property, which forces them to sell off their lots much faster because the price of holding on to these unproductive vacant lots is much, much higher than it is with a simple property tax. In extreme cases, where there is no improvement tax, this would mean that a vacant lot downtown would pay as much in tax as the lot next door on which there is a 50-story skyscraper.<br />
<br />
This tax doesn't punish people who improve their property either. Adding value to your property will not result in a much higher tax bill.<br />
<br />
LVT have actually been used a lot in the State of Pennsylvania, where it is notably credited with encouraging the formation of dynamic downtown areas in many cities like Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, despite bad economic conditions.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-49YDwejx1VQ/V5RD09VquvI/AAAAAAAAE6M/UkwWjx9nInMCdwhpS0yEw1LxfqyqmcfuQCLcB/s1600/Harrisburg.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="432" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-49YDwejx1VQ/V5RD09VquvI/AAAAAAAAE6M/UkwWjx9nInMCdwhpS0yEw1LxfqyqmcfuQCLcB/s640/Harrisburg.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Harrisburg's downtown is notably densely built with few surface parking lots for a mid-size American city at the center of a half-million metro area</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_nCAMtmSK6w/V5RECsreeKI/AAAAAAAAE6Q/Io96vNDSZUs5eQceN0VOUqjspmEcvYXrACLcB/s1600/Lansing.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="428" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_nCAMtmSK6w/V5RECsreeKI/AAAAAAAAE6Q/Io96vNDSZUs5eQceN0VOUqjspmEcvYXrACLcB/s640/Lansing.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This is Lansing, Michigan, to provide a contrast</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
A LVT may also create pressure for developers to build higher density in order to consume less land and thus lower the tax bill. This is not only a good idea for urbanists, but it is also a sign of fairness, as that way big properties that require a lot of public infrastructure to serve will pay more, so that people fund public services more proportionally to how they use them.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Frontage tax</h3>
A frontage tax is a tax on the street-fronting width of the property, which is generally defined as a fixed amount to pay per year per meter or foot of frontage of a property.<br />
<br />
This tax is mainly justified by an user-payer system, the street is where the public infrastructure is, including the street itself, the watermain and the sewers. The frontage of a property is thus almost directly proportional to the amount of public infrastructure the city has to build and maintain to service that property. So it stands to reason that the city should levy a tax that is proportional to the frontage of the property.<br />
<br />
Think about it, if your property is 20 meters wide, that means you have 20 meters of street in front of it, 20 meters of watermain pipe, 20 meters of sewers, etc... These are things the city built to service your property, so it's fair to ask you to pay for them.<br />
<br />
Some might say that this is independent of the wealth of the household who owns the lot, so the tax is regressive. But in reality, it's a tax that becomes progressive over time as owners and developers adapt to this new price signal and so attempt to conserve width as much as possible. It also rewards multi-family housing and townhouses, housing types that the poor live in more often than the rich.<br />
<br />
Of course, this tax shouldn't be the only tax a city relies on, but it has an added advantage that it can actually be estimated in an objective manner as the cost required to replace the city's infrastructure every 30 to 50 years. For example, I've seen many cases here that indicates that reconstructing a street and its underground water pipes cost about 5 million dollars canadian per km, or 6 million dollars US per mile. If this is an accurate estimate, then you can estimate that every property which fronts a paved public street and connected to a public watermain and sewers should pay about 60 $ per linear meter of frontage per year, or 18$ per foot.<br />
<br />
5 000 000$/km equals 5 000$ per meter, divided by 2 because there are properties on either side of the street means 2 500$ per meter per side, divided by 40 years (reconstruction of the infrastructure every 40 years), that is 62,50$ per meter per year.<br />
<br />
If you have a regular single-family lot that is 15 to 20 meters wide (50 to 70 feet), that means paying 900 to 1200$ per year in taxes, 100$ per month, ONLY in order to rebuild the street at the end of its useful life expectancy. Not cheap, eh?<br />
<br />
An added bonus to such a tax is a matter of fairness for certain developments that have private streets and infrastructure. For example, there was a condo cluster that was built in Boucherville a few years back:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-awKvgNbUnMw/V4rhMjUY3DI/AAAAAAAAE5g/LXgke_paRJk4JVFQu2lofa4NwpUvGd3vQCLcB/s1600/BouchervilleCondo.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="476" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-awKvgNbUnMw/V4rhMjUY3DI/AAAAAAAAE5g/LXgke_paRJk4JVFQu2lofa4NwpUvGd3vQCLcB/s640/BouchervilleCondo.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This condo cluster actually had private streets as there was no public street in the middle of the lot, which would have precluded development of part of it. This also allowed them to make a street that was narrower than the city would allow, being only 20 feet wide. But right now, the condo owners are demanding that the city take over these private streets. Why? Because they know they will have to repair it someday, and that since they're private, the condo owners will be on hook for 100% of the cost... MEANWHILE, since Boucherville has no frontage tax and funds itself primarily through a property tax, the condo owners pay 100% of the taxes that every other owner in Boucherville who has a public-street-fronted lot pays.<br />
<br />
This is evidently unfair, either the private streets' maintenance and reconstruction must be assumed by the city because the owners already pay for them through their taxes OR the city should lower the owners' taxes to take into account that they are not connected directly to a public street.<br />
<br />
With a frontage tax, there is no issue, the condo owners in this case would have to collectively assume only the tax for the public street that fronts the condo cluster, and they would then have lower taxes which allows them to put money aside towards maintaining and rebuilding their own private streets. If they still don't... well, that's on them.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Development charges</h3>
Development charges are often a big part of cities' budgets, despite their "once-in-a-lifetime" occurrence. These are charges levied on new developments, often justified because of the need to provide new infrastructure for new developments.<br />
<br />
On the issue of fairness, it is reasonable to ask greenfield developments to pay for the new infrastructure needs they create. However, in many cases such development charges are often levied even on brownfield redevelopments that reuse existing infrastructure. Development charges, to be effectively fair, need to be modulated based on how much infrastructure new developments actually required. Redevelopment in existing areas should pay next to no charges, while greenfield developments should pay a lot.<br />
<br />
With regards to the impacts on city developments, it really depends on how the charges are determined. If each new unit has to pay the same charges regardless of size or location, then of course this falls much more heavily on smaller units and affordable housing. A proper development charge should probably be mainly based on street frontage.<br />
<br />
That being said, it is important for cities not to grow dependent on such taxes to fund their current budgets or repairs to their current infrastructure. When a city starts relying one one-time development charges to balance the books, it is setting itself up to fail in the future when development stops. Again, I highly recommend reading about the organization called "<a href="http://www.strongtowns.org/">Strong Towns</a>" which makes that argument over and over and argues for financial sustainability of cities.<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
Property transfer taxes</h3>
This is a tax that is a bit like development charges, but instead of being charged only once upon construction of a building, it is charged every time a property is sold. This is a widely used tax, but I honestly don't know why it is so popular. The most obvious effect of the tax would be to reduce the number of property transfers, which can hurt cities by locking down some lots that would be sold otherwise.<br />
<br />
This tax is especially stupid when condos have started replacing apartments in certain housing markets. In the past, since job security was higher and housing options were basically apartments and single-family houses, the average citizen would probably pay it just once. He would rent apartments until meeting a spouse, then buy a house in which he would raise his family. Today, with jobs being less stable and the lack of recent apartments for the middle-class, the new generation may buy many condos before going into a house, and they may also move a few times even after buying a house. So the new generation is probably going to pay that tax more than once.<br />
<br />
The thing with this tax however is that it is great politically. The people who pay the tax are newcomers without the right to vote, they become residents only after paying it, at which point they pay that tax only if they move. So that's a revenue for cities that they can levy without protest from long-term citizens who are more involved politically.<br />
<br />
Overall, this is a stupid tax, there's no point to it and it should be abolished wherever it may be found. Considering the extraordinary growth in condos, which are often replacing middle-class and high-end apartments and the greater mobility of households due to the modern economy, this tax is nothing short of a disaster.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion: my take on taxes</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Personally, I think that provincial/State governments should mandate cities levy a frontage tax on all properties, based upon the reconstruction cost of the infrastructure of the street that fronts a property, and the funds of that levy should be earmarked only for maintenance and construction of a city's public infrastructure. That way, we can make sure that all cities levy enough taxes for the long-term sustainability of its public infrastructure and avoid entire cities going to seed due to neglect and deferred maintenance. If this results in taxes increasing a lot on certain property types, that's a good thing, because the tax will signal how wasteful that type of development is and result in more financially sustainable developments from now on. It would also hurt speculators maintaining vacant lots or decrepit buildings.<br />
<br />
As to funding the rest of municipal budgets, I think this should fall upon a land value tax and an improvement/building value tax, and the land tax should be much higher than the improvement tax in order to further discourage speculation. The tax on improvement is still there to modulate taxes based on one's wealth. However, it's important that this property tax is modulated on a relatively local area, so as to avoid having urban areas subsidize suburbs, where housing value is low but transport costs are high.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-88022505416512163932016-06-22T01:30:00.000-04:002016-07-06T19:38:10.893-04:00Observations on Chinese cities<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK, so for the last two weeks, I've been traveling around China, just for fun. As far as urbanism go, China is one of the biggest stories around. Like in every other country that developed economically, China is living through extremely rapid urbanization of its population. Also, unlike most other developing countries, the Chinese government is strong, stable and willing to take the lead in investing tons of money into public infrastructure.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uybeDLBTtto/V2nqi7uvzuI/AAAAAAAAE0s/qRKsXXP6YfoUD1JY7aBik31f4kdW1rWBgCLcB/s1600/1-DSC04421.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uybeDLBTtto/V2nqi7uvzuI/AAAAAAAAE0s/qRKsXXP6YfoUD1JY7aBik31f4kdW1rWBgCLcB/s640/1-DSC04421.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>30 years ago, Shanghai had no subway, today its 588 km of tracks make it the most extensive metro system in the world and one of the most used, with 3 billion passengers per year</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let's talk about about Chinese urbanism, shall we? Again, I'm no expert, this is my own personal experience and my conclusions from what I have noticed. I make no claim of omniscience or infallibility.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The Chinese street</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Streets in China are a mixed bag. Some of them seemed to be extremely well-designed, with narrow store fronts all along it, relatively wide sidewalks with good design (including tactile guidelines for the blind) and plenty of trees.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dL0PTUPpEMU/V2ntE1Bq7AI/AAAAAAAAE04/T4jiimhT3s0mR8mW4yNDjSqV6su0fP1JQCLcB/s1600/19-IMGP5610.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dL0PTUPpEMU/V2ntE1Bq7AI/AAAAAAAAE04/T4jiimhT3s0mR8mW4yNDjSqV6su0fP1JQCLcB/s640/19-IMGP5610.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A common Chinese street: tons of streets, nice sidewalk with guidelines for the blind and tons of tiny shops lining it</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many Chinese cities also often separate wide streets with grassy medians on both sides, leaving travel lanes in the center of the street and either bike/scooter lanes on the side, parking lanes and/or bus lanes.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9kb9DjZ4QEM/V2ntvD877BI/AAAAAAAAE1E/eWxLn31vkVIb6zwNSDkin7o5pgG6QgvGwCLcB/s1600/05-IMGP5432.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9kb9DjZ4QEM/V2ntvD877BI/AAAAAAAAE1E/eWxLn31vkVIb6zwNSDkin7o5pgG6QgvGwCLcB/s640/05-IMGP5432.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This street leaves 4 travel lanes for cars in the center, with bike/scooter lanes and parking lanes on the side, separated from travel lanes by medians covered with bushes and trees</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One thing I can say for sure is that the Chinese don't give a damn about "fixed object clearance", they are keen to put trees bordering travel lanes or other fixed obstacles. Kudos to them for it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, there's a problem, a very big problem. Chinese drivers, whether of cars, buses or scooters, are terrible at actually following the rules of the road. Drivers next to never give right of way to pedestrians or scooters. Instead, they slow down and honk to force them to let them pass. After a few days, I had started to be used to it, I was tolerating the incessant honking of Chinese streets by thinking back on the idiom "chien qui aboie ne mord pas", "barking dogs never bite".... maybe "honking driver never hit", it's the ones who don't honk who are the most dangerous.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Chinese drivers also have no qualm about using the sidewalk for parking when convenient. This reminds me of my articles about how tolerating street parking can cripple emerging parking markets by providing a free publicly-provided alternative.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LenLQMK39hE/V2nwB71YiII/AAAAAAAAE1Q/puf237vhdBYZvXQAu6MyUoTmg-kJ8zgZgCLcB/s1600/28-DSC03879.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LenLQMK39hE/V2nwB71YiII/AAAAAAAAE1Q/puf237vhdBYZvXQAu6MyUoTmg-kJ8zgZgCLcB/s640/28-DSC03879.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A wide sidewalk being used as supplementary parking despite parking being allowed on the street</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sn5Od7yerSY/V2nwLPmnChI/AAAAAAAAE1c/ZPeREPO51_M3l_dgXRacLuS5UziWTgFlwCLcB/s1600/18-IMGP5582.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sn5Od7yerSY/V2nwLPmnChI/AAAAAAAAE1c/ZPeREPO51_M3l_dgXRacLuS5UziWTgFlwCLcB/s640/18-IMGP5582.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This bozo parked his car right on the guidelines for the blind</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G4B5ctq3tq8/V2nwKR-H-XI/AAAAAAAAE1Y/wPE6-UBAOdATS6s775w2MAJ_ZuoUDh4wACLcB/s1600/21-DSC03493.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G4B5ctq3tq8/V2nwKR-H-XI/AAAAAAAAE1Y/wPE6-UBAOdATS6s775w2MAJ_ZuoUDh4wACLcB/s640/21-DSC03493.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Other example of formal parking on the sidewalk, taking almost all of it</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In areas under construction, sometimes streets were an utter disaster, with pedestrians walking along what were essentially highways, with no sidewalk to speak of. I also saw people walking in an highway interchange while I was in a bus, the planners in the area having made the mistake of providing infrastructure requiring cars to be properly used, in a country where most people still cannot afford cars.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QZ15eoIyoSo/V2nwt6M4y2I/AAAAAAAAE1o/m-EPPX1ZGuUZsiy4sH-CgT0RQk1GYh5xACLcB/s1600/16-IMGP5575.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QZ15eoIyoSo/V2nwt6M4y2I/AAAAAAAAE1o/m-EPPX1ZGuUZsiy4sH-CgT0RQk1GYh5xACLcB/s640/16-IMGP5575.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>People walking on the shoulder of an extremely wide urban road, almost highway-like</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Chinese who spoke English I talked to who were aware of Japanese streets and their highly respectful drivers were largely envious of Japan in that regard. A sentiment I feel is pretty widely shared, however, in a context of tolerated aggressive driving, even people who are tempted to follow the law are forced to become aggressive drivers too. Overall, what China indicates to me is that you can have the best infrastructure possible, but you still need to make sure people follow the rules. And if you tolerate deviant behavior too much, then at some point, you force even people who want to be law-abiding to adopt deviant behavior not to be shoved out of traffic by other drivers.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"I haven't ridden a bike in ten years!" - testimony from a Chinese</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a side effect of this free-for-all, bikes are being shoved out of public streets, often despite the presence of bike lanes, which are taken over by scooters and e-bikes that can more easily keep up with cars. Most people have been scared into abandoning even the mere idea of biking, despite biking being extremely appropriate for the dense Chinese cities and their megablocs.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The Chinese street grid, or the megabloc</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a clear pattern I found in recent developments in China, which I call the commie megabloc. Essentially, in a way reminiscent of Soviet urbanism, developments in China, rather than having a dense network of streets like Japan or Korea, have enormous blocs that are often half a kilometer in width and length, with streets only on the periphery.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SQPLkhoK7BA/V2ny7hjJ_hI/AAAAAAAAE14/7_X1UtRA2H0I737H44Hm8pmh7_yxH7pOACLcB/s1600/ChineR%25C3%25A9sidentiel1Airbis.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="538" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SQPLkhoK7BA/V2ny7hjJ_hI/AAAAAAAAE14/7_X1UtRA2H0I737H44Hm8pmh7_yxH7pOACLcB/s640/ChineR%25C3%25A9sidentiel1Airbis.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Example of megabloc, a very big residential bloc-sized development is bordered by straight streets</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, this form of development is actually even worse than the Soviet-style one for a simple reason: the traditional Chinese approach of surrounding one's residence by walls.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"Why wouldn't you want a wall there? It's your property!" -response from a Chinese when I said that houses in North America have unwalled front yards open to the street</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This can be seen in traditional Chinese hutongs (or alleys) and the Siheyuan courtyard house that made up much of the urban residential housing stock in Imperial China.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Xo3EigX9MY/V2nz2y0iC3I/AAAAAAAAE2E/Y2K3ZiAndCUGK8T-AGwa_VGlUgREPkmhACLcB/s1600/23-DSC03643.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Xo3EigX9MY/V2nz2y0iC3I/AAAAAAAAE2E/Y2K3ZiAndCUGK8T-AGwa_VGlUgREPkmhACLcB/s640/23-DSC03643.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A Chinese hutong in Beijing, doors in the walls often open on small courtyards, with houses built inside walls located at the property line</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This tradition has actually been ported over to multifamily developments, but instead of each household having its own walled off property, the apartment bloc, or even the apartment cluster, is surrounded by a wall with only one access path, often one with a barrier and a security guard.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KuJY4d-ndQA/V2n01yN2T1I/AAAAAAAAE2c/NNjdUNcwWdwry2uHFXGJJ9Ns8Rs4WM5DACLcB/s1600/29-DSC04050.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KuJY4d-ndQA/V2n01yN2T1I/AAAAAAAAE2c/NNjdUNcwWdwry2uHFXGJJ9Ns8Rs4WM5DACLcB/s640/29-DSC04050.JPG" width="424" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A high metal fence surrounds this cluster of residential high-rises, cutting off pedestrian traffic between it and the street</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eQ_JzA-hmsM/V2n01gnuY0I/AAAAAAAAE2U/tswuMnnfYHMrKXQ39kUNnZ3owZvYGgclQCLcB/s1600/30-DSC04059.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eQ_JzA-hmsM/V2n01gnuY0I/AAAAAAAAE2U/tswuMnnfYHMrKXQ39kUNnZ3owZvYGgclQCLcB/s640/30-DSC04059.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Here, they use an unbroken wall of 3-story buildings at the edge of the cluster to wall it off from the street</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O8kIFEjFzEg/V2n00bSz4gI/AAAAAAAAE2Q/bRhA8-28QlA9aeuSDazSNbE2uvvgc5A7QCLcB/s1600/31-DSC04061.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O8kIFEjFzEg/V2n00bSz4gI/AAAAAAAAE2Q/bRhA8-28QlA9aeuSDazSNbE2uvvgc5A7QCLcB/s640/31-DSC04061.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In this case, they have a wall of narrow store-fronts all around the apartment cluster</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mhE4oBtCx7c/V2n02kVKp2I/AAAAAAAAE2g/OBqshOtsEsUnwQeyaPY99sCJXStNpwFbwCLcB/s1600/35-DSC04106.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mhE4oBtCx7c/V2n02kVKp2I/AAAAAAAAE2g/OBqshOtsEsUnwQeyaPY99sCJXStNpwFbwCLcB/s640/35-DSC04106.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>An older neighborhood with residential walls around mid-rise residential blocs</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3OWir4N3EXs/V2n1oZmQjBI/AAAAAAAAE2w/3lRK6mJVWwMeI6UBvT_OEHwOcFWalVXOQCLcB/s1600/GateResidentialCommunity.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3OWir4N3EXs/V2n1oZmQjBI/AAAAAAAAE2w/3lRK6mJVWwMeI6UBvT_OEHwOcFWalVXOQCLcB/s640/GateResidentialCommunity.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This isn't a military base, it's just a regular entry point into an apartment cluster in one of China' megablocs</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The effect of this obsession with walling off residential areas is that it severely cuts down on side streets that can serve as alternative straighter paths for pedestrians and cyclists rather than going on the main through streets that surround the megablocs. This imposes detours on residents who must first get to the one point that allows entry and exit of their community before going where they want to go. That's not how the Soviets did it, nor how the Swedes do it (for they also have things inspired by that design, I talked about it <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-site-vs-off-site-parking-and-swedish_28.html">here</a>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In effect, a lot of Chinese developments are basically like gated communities. It's just that instead of being isolated geographically, they are built deep inside urban areas. This mode of development has some advantages and some disadvantages.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
ADVANTAGES</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>It avoids having traffic running through residential areas, as they have no through street within them, which makes areas safer and quieter (considering the constant melody of cars honking in China, that is not to be neglected).</li>
<li>It channels stores and offices onto the periphery road, all these roads forming a regular grid that are highly conducive to surface transit. Indeed, buses have no alternative but to simply travel on these roads in straight lines, without detours, which also makes it easy for people to navigate the bus system: just go to the major road and take buses in the direction you want to go to.</li>
<li>It limits the number of intersections pedestrians walking along the major roads will face, since there tends to be only one of them every 300 to 500 meters.</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
DISADVANTAGES</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>It creates a street grid with a very low number of through streets, which results in a dilemma where you can either have small streets that face near constant congestion (terrible for buses too) or very wide streets that act as barriers to non-motorized travel.</li>
<li>Without footpaths and bikepaths through the megablocs, this can also impose detours for short-distance trips, which makes ownership of cars and scooters much more attractive.</li>
<li>Though the low number of streets makes for better transit lines that are easier to understand, they also can create bus bunching and congestion because bus lines have relatively low capacities. In China, most buses tend to be midibuses, which are shorter and narrower than the usual North American bus, and I never saw any articulated bus (though I did see and rode a double-decker, which was bouncy as all hell). So it's not unusual to have 4 or 5 buses following each other, each being of a different overlapping line.</li>
</ul>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VoBlqkUvkXM/V2oPrtzikyI/AAAAAAAAE3A/xEfEaej7vy4LiS46pi79l6zLITgKty_kwCLcB/s1600/1-DSC03880.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VoBlqkUvkXM/V2oPrtzikyI/AAAAAAAAE3A/xEfEaej7vy4LiS46pi79l6zLITgKty_kwCLcB/s640/1-DSC03880.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>4 buses bunched up together</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In recent years, the Chinese government has started pressuring developers to build more streets in their megablocs, but will it change this pattern?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One effect of this way of building cities is that I had the opposite problem while reading maps than I had in Japan. In Japan, while reading maps, I would continually be confused by the dense grid of small residential streets into overestimating distances. In China, it was the opposite, I kept underestimating distances due to the lack of streets.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h3>
The economics of transport</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The
first thing I can say about public transport is that it is
exceptionally cheap. The typical bus has a fare between 1,0 and 2,0
yuans, which is about 20-40 Canadian cents. Taxis are much more
affordable too, with the fare per distance being of about 2,3 to 2,5 RMB
per km from what I've seen, or about 50 Canadian cents per km (which
comes out to about 0,60 USD per mile) with a minimum fare of 10-15 RMB.
So yes, taxis are affordable for foreign tourists, but public transit is
much, much cheaper than them. Metros have distance-based fares, but
rarely go above 5 RMB (1 CAD).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However,
what hurts trains and metros is that following a mass suicide knife
attack on a train station by Uyghurs (three guesses as to their
religion, the first two don't count), China has installed X-ray baggage
scanners in EVERY train and metro station. Train stations even have
guards with assault rifles at the doors, just in case. Unlike the
Japanese, they do not allow train passengers to access train boarding
platforms, people have to wait in an overpopulated and way too hot
waiting room and line up 30-45 minutes before the train leaves, to allow
staff to control tickets. This is like what VIA Rail does in Canada and
is a disaster in terms of customer experience, taking the airplane
experience, and making it worse.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
China
also has tolls on its highways, but since I never drove (you couldn't
pay me to drive there!) I cannot say how high the tolls are. These tolls
may help limit car travel in the long run, but there doesn't seem to be
all that many of them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then,
there is the issue of parking. Talking with my guide, it appears that
underground parking spaces in China are about as expensive as over here,
and the government has started to mandate minimum parking rules for new
developments. However, the continued tolerance of sidewalk parking
remains a thorn in the growth of a healthy parking market that forces
drivers to pay the full cost of their parking. Parking costs are a great
incentive for urban residents to avoid using their cars for short
trips, cutting down significantly on local traffic. As long as people
can avoid paying for parking by parking haphazardly on sidewalks, it
will likely remain a difficult situation for all involved, even drivers
as they are likely to have less parking options than they would if they
were paying for their parking and thus attracting developers to build
more parking.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What
is interesting is the lack of commercial parking. Commercial areas
rarely have more parking than street parking, though I'm sure big malls
have underground parking or the like. This is radically different from
North America, where the high parking requirements for commercial
developments is the main reason why towns and suburbs remain largely
unwalkable, since <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2015/11/commercial-or-residential-density-which.html">commercial density is more important to walkability than residential density</a>.</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Overall, my impressions</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
China
has great density, and there is a lot of green spaces and trees inside
their cities. Their government invests massively to provide the public
infrastructure on which their mega-cities are running. Chinese urbanism,
as far as developing countries go, is decent enough, but I couldn't
call it great. The use of megablocs with gated communities severely
hurts non-motorized transport, and it somehow echoes some suburban
practices in North America (dead-end residential streets,
subdivision-level development of clusters of similar buildings, few
through roads that are often wide with difficult intersections to cross,
gated communities, etc...). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The
first measure I would like to see is an opening of the megablocs to
pedestrian traffic, then an enforcement of traffic rules that is
severely lacking. Surface transit could be made better through use of
larger vehicles and
eliminating some lines to increase capacity while reducing bunching.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Despite
its faults, the system works decently enough and allows Chinese cities
to expand in a way that doesn't preclude non-motorized transport or
public transport. It was an interesting experience, though not the
greatest of my life.</div>
</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-90432378436719766582016-05-22T13:11:00.001-04:002016-05-22T13:11:44.091-04:00Land supply, the onion layer theory of sprawl and the crucial need for incremental density<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/02/lurbanisme-ne-peut-pas-se-dissocier-de.html">One of the first articles I wrote</a> for this blog illustrated the theory at the basis of my understanding of urban dynamics, that transport defined how a city grew and how it functioned. That the faster people travel around, the more developments will sprawl, because distance is measured in minutes, not miles, and proximity to a city's jobs and services is the reason why people live in the city in the first place.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A conclusion that I draw from this theory is that the size of a city is dependent on the speed of the main transport mode of residents. Hence why old cities tend to have clearly defined edges at roughly 5 kilometers from the center, which is the equivalent of one hour of walking.</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MZvqdvWOuIc/Vz5WSRpsTGI/AAAAAAAAExY/zXwBaRlL6p83dmnGfT3LOSXDpN-KZb98ACLcB/s1600/Paris10km.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="520" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MZvqdvWOuIc/Vz5WSRpsTGI/AAAAAAAAExY/zXwBaRlL6p83dmnGfT3LOSXDpN-KZb98ACLcB/s640/Paris10km.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Traditional Paris city has a diameter of 10 km, meaning people on the limits of the city can reach the center in one hour on foot</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In effect, transport speed imposes an urban growth boundary on cities, if the area grows too large, the fringes become decoupled from the center of the region because it takes too much time to access the rest of the region. So, in a way, supposing a certain transport speed, you can imagine that there is a limited supply of land of varying quality in an urban area, depending on proximity to the center of economic activities and services, always remembering that proximity is measured in minutes, not miles.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let's come up with an example of a city in a given area that looks like this:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C9Nc5Gk4Cx4/V0E_4ZwoWOI/AAAAAAAAExs/CpFVSYacucw39ojCg-H9X-TJf3A5vo7QwCLcB/s1600/CityBase.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C9Nc5Gk4Cx4/V0E_4ZwoWOI/AAAAAAAAExs/CpFVSYacucw39ojCg-H9X-TJf3A5vo7QwCLcB/s1600/CityBase.JPG" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK, so you have a river that cuts the area in three, there is only one bridge that allows to cross one branch of it, and the red dot represents the downtown of the urban area. Next, I'll divide the area between green, yellow and red areas, with the green representing the most desirable land due to proximity to downtown's jobs and services, the yellow representing lesser desirable locations and red representing marginal locations that stretch people's tolerance of distance.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vn1bLqhT7Zc/V0FAelaAlAI/AAAAAAAAEx0/kvvu_OpoU4gBjmh4jCjQMxRO_T_OMYDFwCLcB/s1600/CityLandSupply.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vn1bLqhT7Zc/V0FAelaAlAI/AAAAAAAAEx0/kvvu_OpoU4gBjmh4jCjQMxRO_T_OMYDFwCLcB/s1600/CityLandSupply.JPG" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So this represents roughly the city's "land supply". It roughly resembles three concentric circles, but the river is an obstacle to land supply, the only desirable locations north of the river is near the bridge to the east.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Note that this supposes that everyone travels at the same speed, which is not correct. People who expect to drive everywhere will tolerate much greater distances, land that is undesirable for a non-driver may yet be desirable for a driver. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If I were to ask where you would expect higher densities of construction, I'd wager most would say that the highest densities should be in the green area, the yellow should be lower density and the red should be low density. After all, cities can't and shouldn't be of uniform density everywhere, different people have different desires and needs, and higher densities should ideally be near jobs and services to allow as many people to access them in a short time as possible, that way you reduce transport needs for the entire city, while preserving people's ability to choose low-density housing if they so wish.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, that makes a lot of sense... if you were to build the entire city from a master plan in one shot. But that's not how cities are built, cities are built in stages over decades. Every year, the city's planners and developers make decisions that make sense for them at that moment in time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Understanding this leads me to what I call the "onion layer theory of sprawl".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The onion layer theory of sprawl</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The theory is based on the idea that low-density housing is actually the proper kind of development to expect from building on the fringe. The fringe is where land is most abundant and less desirable, so that it is cheaper. When a product is cheap, people tend to use more of it than absolutely necessary, that's true for gas, that's true for human labor and that's true for land. So having a bigger plot of land is affordable on the fringe.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For the planner, low-density housing is also more tolerable on the fringe. If you have a given amount of land on the fringe, since the location results in higher transport needs (people driving more often and longer distances), it's better to have fewer people there.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To use the earlier example, let's imagine we're only looking at a small town here, with the following urban area already built:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dfo4Od2Rcwc/V0FNtlnAr4I/AAAAAAAAEyE/Dn3KgDo0UuA2-x1s1bf5JZ88DGy1aPP1wCLcB/s1600/CityGrows1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dfo4Od2Rcwc/V0FNtlnAr4I/AAAAAAAAEyE/Dn3KgDo0UuA2-x1s1bf5JZ88DGy1aPP1wCLcB/s1600/CityGrows1.JPG" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this case, the green, desirable, land is still not fully built, the yellow, less desirable, land is still completely empty. If the city grows 1% each year, there's still plenty of land to go around, even green land, so the value of land will be very low. As a result, building low-density is affordable, and so it will likely be what ends up getting built.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, after a few years, the built area keeps growing and growing and you may get the following:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wUBMyNNuLBA/V0FPmS0hzvI/AAAAAAAAEyQ/a7KoeUMFGzw_PrnD-_u5t3djjDaHFPm3ACLcB/s1600/CityGrows2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wUBMyNNuLBA/V0FPmS0hzvI/AAAAAAAAEyQ/a7KoeUMFGzw_PrnD-_u5t3djjDaHFPm3ACLcB/s1600/CityGrows2.JPG" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At this point, the desirable land is almost all gone, which will drive the value of land up in that area. However, on the fringe, there's still plenty of yellow land to go around, so the land value over there will be much cheaper, again, the new layer of construction will likely be low-density too, with a smattering of higher density housing in the remaining green area to develop.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And so it goes on :</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k8B7wE08tmE/V0FSIrTQYwI/AAAAAAAAEyc/HkFe5TnytFAC8MHKGxphWXpkfJgxxFhhwCLcB/s1600/CityGrows3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k8B7wE08tmE/V0FSIrTQYwI/AAAAAAAAEyc/HkFe5TnytFAC8MHKGxphWXpkfJgxxFhhwCLcB/s1600/CityGrows3.JPG" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again, you are running out of yellow land, and now only the marginal land remains largely undeveloped. Again, lots in the green and yellow areas will see their value increase significantly, but there are few of them left. Meanwhile, land in the red area will remain largely affordable, inciting the new layer of development to again be of low-density.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So the resulting urban density looks a bit like this:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wTVOqiQrjxw/V0FTHSlm3TI/AAAAAAAAEyk/Xc65d_CprLUNslQQjkG04j6Vw9nUQDw4gCLcB/s1600/OnionLayer1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wTVOqiQrjxw/V0FTHSlm3TI/AAAAAAAAEyk/Xc65d_CprLUNslQQjkG04j6Vw9nUQDw4gCLcB/s1600/OnionLayer1.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This is how the city starts, in red, the dense downtown, in orange the mid-density neighborhoods close to downtown, in green, the low-density suburbs</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gfMLmBLmNH8/V0FTHZwPhMI/AAAAAAAAEyo/5v_4ZlOfKdYKdPOfgMvldpr2f7B779lGQCLcB/s1600/OnionLayer2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gfMLmBLmNH8/V0FTHZwPhMI/AAAAAAAAEyo/5v_4ZlOfKdYKdPOfgMvldpr2f7B779lGQCLcB/s1600/OnionLayer2.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The first layer after development begins, since land is cheap on the fringe, it's likely to result in low-density developments</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HvAO7coSDXo/V0FTHVs_HPI/AAAAAAAAEys/-3fdM8XKRqocLb76yRcwybYQiv_3lRaxQCLcB/s1600/OnionLayer3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HvAO7coSDXo/V0FTHVs_HPI/AAAAAAAAEys/-3fdM8XKRqocLb76yRcwybYQiv_3lRaxQCLcB/s1600/OnionLayer3.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Another new layer of low-density developments</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1Z5K-UPh428/V0FTHnyuWtI/AAAAAAAAEyw/aXUnFu6TYxETYAg6vJtDFyDTkTcIow4QgCLcB/s1600/OnionLayer4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1Z5K-UPh428/V0FTHnyuWtI/AAAAAAAAEyw/aXUnFu6TYxETYAg6vJtDFyDTkTcIow4QgCLcB/s1600/OnionLayer4.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>And on and on it goes...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So is there a way out? Well, the traditional answer was incremental construction, with progressive densification of the core even as the fringe was still being built. But with the advent of strict zoning rules, this way is too often closed, resulting in an almost uniform low-density sprawling city.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ironically, at one point the city's sprawl may make it run out of land withing tolerable distance from the city's core. At that point, the planners and developers may both agree to start building higher density as land gets more expensive. This is not that uncommon, many metro areas have higher density developments in farther suburbs than inner suburbs because of that, since farther suburbs are more recent.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, here is a Google Earth image from the fringe of Calgary's urban area:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lsvoXCcmqM4/V0FZU1XGQoI/AAAAAAAAEzE/OGWUVnRXacI4KwKALe3j0pKtFirsgpQtQCLcB/s1600/CalgaryFringe.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="312" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lsvoXCcmqM4/V0FZU1XGQoI/AAAAAAAAEzE/OGWUVnRXacI4KwKALe3j0pKtFirsgpQtQCLcB/s640/CalgaryFringe.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Recent developments on Calgary's fringe, dense single-family housing and 4-story apartment buildings</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And here is an image from a neighborhood within 30-minute walk of downtown:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9wPJsNqYdRQ/V0FZkI6gEXI/AAAAAAAAEzI/iL2R9Tmo3M8YtWvnhqVIQLUVz8KSJ8AFwCLcB/s1600/CalgaryCloseSuburb.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="276" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9wPJsNqYdRQ/V0FZkI6gEXI/AAAAAAAAEzI/iL2R9Tmo3M8YtWvnhqVIQLUVz8KSJ8AFwCLcB/s640/CalgaryCloseSuburb.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This leafy, low-density area is 30 minutes on foot from downtown Calgary</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-euj_beseH4A/V0FZzyGo0qI/AAAAAAAAEzM/t8Tsi7k7CPA1UQ4Oy33jHMoLwjNM9KJfACLcB/s1600/CalgaryMap.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="622" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-euj_beseH4A/V0FZzyGo0qI/AAAAAAAAEzM/t8Tsi7k7CPA1UQ4Oy33jHMoLwjNM9KJfACLcB/s640/CalgaryMap.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Location of previous images</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, you can build more land...</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"<i>Buy land, they're not making it anymore</i>" is a common saying, attributed to Mark Twain. However, that is not true on an urban level. You CAN build land, or rather increase the supply of land of a given desirability. If you build transport infrastructure to increase travel speed, you are expanding the distance people will be willing to travel, which effectively increases land supply for urban development.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, let's return to the example before:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vn1bLqhT7Zc/V0FAelaAlAI/AAAAAAAAEx8/MC8tGHkwC-cicHFiMvgHuVz1LVv-y5phQCKgB/s1600/CityLandSupply.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vn1bLqhT7Zc/V0FAelaAlAI/AAAAAAAAEx8/MC8tGHkwC-cicHFiMvgHuVz1LVv-y5phQCKgB/s1600/CityLandSupply.JPG" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this particular case, there is an obvious problem in that the river keeps land to the north of it from being desirable, as they're disconnected from the downtown area. But if you build new bridges, then...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9rxhQZEZ_Jk/V0FbFI7h5JI/AAAAAAAAEzc/NwRplGtr-3w34mQ8bhqd_moTFtEsTajjQCLcB/s1600/CityNewBridges.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9rxhQZEZ_Jk/V0FbFI7h5JI/AAAAAAAAEzc/NwRplGtr-3w34mQ8bhqd_moTFtEsTajjQCLcB/s1600/CityNewBridges.JPG" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
...you can significantly expand the amount of desirable land for development. And if that's not enough, you can also speed up travel significantly in a given corridor by building an expressway passing near downtown:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-393_mtuxGPA/V0FbVi8SdeI/AAAAAAAAEzg/i18tzKLfAOMWQzVCgfhTCHBeDebD1uTlwCLcB/s1600/CityNewHighway.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-393_mtuxGPA/V0FbVi8SdeI/AAAAAAAAEzg/i18tzKLfAOMWQzVCgfhTCHBeDebD1uTlwCLcB/s1600/CityNewHighway.JPG" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This realization is important to understand the role freeways have in North American sprawl. Freeways, that are funded by Federal and State/provincial governments, are built in urban areas, which allows the supply of land to be significantly increased, yet those who benefit from this infrastructure largely do not have to pay for them. In effect, the DOTs/transport ministries are deeply involved in urban development because of this, yet they pretend ignorance and innocence in order not to get sucked in such debate.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sprawl in North America is thus dependent on the construction of new roads all the time in order to increase the supply of land, and thus keep land prices low enough that low-density developments remain financially viable. This is in fact a great subsidy for sprawling cities and their suburbs. When that scheme fails due to geographical limits, like in Vancouver for example, then sprawl crashes and prices explode. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In recent years, some governments have started talking of the possibility of taxing land around transit as a "value capture" option... which is absolutely stupid since transit is largely funded by users and the people who reside near it already. If there is a reason to do this kind of "value capture", it would be to do it for freeways, not transit, since freeways are currently funded through indirect taxes on everyone and not through fees on users.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Conclusion</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So I know a lot of things I wrote here may seem almost self-evident, but it's important to keep in mind that they have consequences. For one, since it makes sense to build every layer of a city's expanding border as low-density when it is built, it's important to make sure that our zoning and planning rules allow these areas to later densify organically to accommodate a rarefaction of land in the city, otherwise, prices may well explode. Likewise, since transport infrastructure spending increases the supply of land, it's important to take this effect into consideration, and ideally to charge those who benefit from them rather than simply fund such spending through general revenues.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-23041683370804467462016-04-03T16:37:00.002-04:002017-03-21T09:44:50.288-04:00Police box: policing a walkable city<div style="text-align: justify;">
Much is often made in urbanist circles on how denser developments can foster a stronger community by bringing people closer together, but I'd like to make some observations on another crucial element of a community: law enforcement. Though much despised, policing forces are nonetheless an essential part of a community.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In most North American communities, police takes the curious form of clearly identified vehicles basically prowling the streets in search of violations (most often traffic violations). The analogy of police being predators hunting for prey is a bit too easy to make. This doesn't help police-community relations at all, because the isolation of private vehicles means that police will rarely be in contact with the community except when intervening, so police may come to see the community they're policing (especially if they don't live in it) as made up of only two types of people: law violators/criminals and victims begging for help. That's not a great way to develop a great relationship: "that community is full of criminals and people who flout the law all the time and hate us, but when they're in trouble, suddenly it's 'please mr policeman, save us!!!'".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When police are not in their cars, they're at the precinct or headquarters. And then there is another major urban design flaw. Jane Jacobs coined the term "eyes on the streets" to denote how open-designed buildings with plenty of windows can help make people feel safe because of the likelihood of people watching the street at any time, helping to make cities more safe. Well, if that is true, then what eyes would be more effective than police eyes? And yet, the North American design of police buildings is, well, lacking...</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UhSI-F32oS4/VwFuPeWqreI/AAAAAAAAEuA/hwPp4g5YNBMb2heH0BZtC3n_R2-2sP6DA/s1600/Postedequartier.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="336" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UhSI-F32oS4/VwFuPeWqreI/AAAAAAAAEuA/hwPp4g5YNBMb2heH0BZtC3n_R2-2sP6DA/s640/Postedequartier.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A neighborhood precinct in Montréal, with small windows with blinds or curtains, which is ironically one of the best designs of the examples I'll show here...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sw-yrfq68mw/VwFumb47CeI/AAAAAAAAEuE/7D3JCFhKRbMf8ZTYBa9c94srDcIqrYJcQ/s1600/Minneapolis%2BPrecinct.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sw-yrfq68mw/VwFumb47CeI/AAAAAAAAEuE/7D3JCFhKRbMf8ZTYBa9c94srDcIqrYJcQ/s640/Minneapolis%2BPrecinct.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A precinct in Minneapolis, note the dearth of open windows at the ground level and the setback, but the worst is yet to come...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VToLv84Yz0U/VwFuzudZ7kI/AAAAAAAAEuI/BWwsvw-t4okhOHFdxRuC-K8GkFdQtYGxA/s1600/Dallas%2BArlington%2BPD.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="296" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VToLv84Yz0U/VwFuzudZ7kI/AAAAAAAAEuI/BWwsvw-t4okhOHFdxRuC-K8GkFdQtYGxA/s640/Dallas%2BArlington%2BPD.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Behind these trees and parking lot could be any regular suburban office, but this is Arlington's (Texas) Police Department building</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LNmDe7v526k/VwFvDyaOldI/AAAAAAAAEuQ/BV_D3swdU2MAnVU1ySKFlh3wdOVhFUqnA/s1600/Dallas-Glenn%2BHeights%2BPD.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LNmDe7v526k/VwFvDyaOldI/AAAAAAAAEuQ/BV_D3swdU2MAnVU1ySKFlh3wdOVhFUqnA/s640/Dallas-Glenn%2BHeights%2BPD.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>And this is the crowning achievement of shame, Glenn Heights' Police Department, in the suburbs of Dallas, no window on the road, which anyway is in the middle of nowhere. Might be useful in a zombie apocalypse, but otherwise...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reason for this type of policing is easy enough to understand. With people dispersed everywhere over a large area, how can a few dozen policemen provide effective surveillance if they're not constantly on the move, at a speed that allows them to cover enough ground. This is a model that is also needlessly applied to dense neighborhoods which could have an alternative mode of policing.<br />
<br />
Another unpleasant result of this is that policemen develop severe windshield perspective syndrome, since they spend their jobs at the wheel, they adopt the point of view of drivers, being more lax towards casual traffic violations by drivers and more likely to enforce jaywalking fines or the like on pedestrians and cyclists (and also, disrespecting bike lanes). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And what alternative mode is there? Well, again, Japan shows an interesting contrast.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The kouban, or police box </h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Japanese cities are a lot more dense than North American cities, even recent suburban developments often have 30 to 40 houses per hectare (12 to 16 per acre) and business/commercial districts remain many times more dense, and are often concentrated at train stations that connect the entire country, like surface subway lines (though often with 30-60+ minutes headway if not less in rural regions).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Japanese therefore still use a specific mode of policing inherited from the pre-motorized era, with a focus on the kouban (交番), or police box. Here are a few examples of what they look like:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-02xxKCHPDEA/VwF4DrA-RcI/AAAAAAAAEuk/QkvU_MMuWX0u7dY0SI44PZF4-09AD_Y9w/s1600/KobanGotanda2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="432" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-02xxKCHPDEA/VwF4DrA-RcI/AAAAAAAAEuk/QkvU_MMuWX0u7dY0SI44PZF4-09AD_Y9w/s640/KobanGotanda2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This is the plaza in front of Gotanda Station in Tokyo, the Kouban is circled in red...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_iltvGLvZF4/VwF4Dg5RfBI/AAAAAAAAEuo/XN_24DdVU-cZ7b1zleOJMkILBy2uRVvhg/s1600/KobanGotanda.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="536" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_iltvGLvZF4/VwF4Dg5RfBI/AAAAAAAAEuo/XN_24DdVU-cZ7b1zleOJMkILBy2uRVvhg/s640/KobanGotanda.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>...here is what it looks like, not the small size and the windows making up nearly all of the front, allowing the policeman occupying it to see outside easily</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2AvB3eSH1KE/VwF4YezAvBI/AAAAAAAAEus/O_suz7k2Z4cdYGnEgE3LJyPodHm7Sg90w/s1600/TokyoKoban.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="378" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2AvB3eSH1KE/VwF4YezAvBI/AAAAAAAAEus/O_suz7k2Z4cdYGnEgE3LJyPodHm7Sg90w/s640/TokyoKoban.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>That small red building in the center of this business district is also a kouban</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZp3OPDXewA/VwF4gyBMpsI/AAAAAAAAEuw/pwNpP_nBUBc59GR4DKvTA8gygbRNo2yJQ/s1600/KobanYokohamaChinatown.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="566" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZp3OPDXewA/VwF4gyBMpsI/AAAAAAAAEuw/pwNpP_nBUBc59GR4DKvTA8gygbRNo2yJQ/s640/KobanYokohamaChinatown.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This kouban is at the entry point of Yokohama's chinatown, as you can see a policeman is standing right in front of it</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zZ1ePNKRWI8/VwF4r1Mz5jI/AAAAAAAAEu0/1eUluryTcFwmsrCMAJxBlNabLp04rc4wQ/s1600/SusukinoKoban.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="288" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zZ1ePNKRWI8/VwF4r1Mz5jI/AAAAAAAAEu0/1eUluryTcFwmsrCMAJxBlNabLp04rc4wQ/s640/SusukinoKoban.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>It may be hard to see, but the small building at the center of this image is the Susukino Kouban in Sapporo, right in the middle of an entertainment/red-light district</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3eGlZEOA36s/VwF44jWAdJI/AAAAAAAAEu8/iXxX8_vJFjou88txZvEwuYp_Y1qlCXRiQ/s1600/IwamizawaKoban.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="254" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3eGlZEOA36s/VwF44jWAdJI/AAAAAAAAEu8/iXxX8_vJFjou88txZvEwuYp_Y1qlCXRiQ/s640/IwamizawaKoban.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The small building to the right is a kouban in Iwamizawa, a small suburb of Sapporo, near the train station and the walkable commercial core of the town</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vMjrMNLuM3U/VwF5HIilOTI/AAAAAAAAEvA/4qyz1YhAx7s1Fe6z9D5Wmv7nUGTgOQQcA/s1600/MatsushimaKoban.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="466" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vMjrMNLuM3U/VwF5HIilOTI/AAAAAAAAEvA/4qyz1YhAx7s1Fe6z9D5Wmv7nUGTgOQQcA/s640/MatsushimaKoban.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A kouban in touristic Matsushima, near the train station, with architecture respecting the traditional context of the town</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Koubans stand out for being really small buildings, which allows them to be put nearly everywhere, and for having a really open design allowing people to look into it and for the policemen to look out of it. They are conveniently located in neighborhoods, often near concentrations of people and economic activities, to keep an eye out on the area and provide a greater feeling of safety.<br />
<br />
These koubans also help people deal with regulations, koubans are involved in the "proof of parking" system and with the bike registry system. They also provide some certainty, when in trouble, people know where the police is, unlike in North America where you absolutely need to place a call to find the police. I think the location of these koubans in the middle of communities also helps foster a much better attitude in policemen towards the community, as they are less isolated from it, and also makes police part of community rather than a kind of occupying force, helping the community's attitude towards its police force.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are a lot of tensions in North America between communities and their police forces. Perhaps more walkable, dense communities could open the door to having more policing done in static fashion, in places that maximize effectiveness rather than having police be prowling predators roaming the streets in vehicles. At the very least, North American police forces should perhaps do more patrols on bike and on foot to help bridge some of the gap between police and the community at large. A greater number of small police offices with an open architecture could also be a great idea, copying the success of the kouban model in Japan.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-55504485091903321212016-03-09T01:49:00.000-05:002017-05-02T14:08:35.189-04:00The case of one-way streets<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another common recommendation from urbanists in North America is the elimination of one-way streets, especially for main streets. The reasoning being that one-way streets reduce the access to commercial main streets, thus reducing their ability to reach certain customers and making businesses lose visibility. So I thought I might give my 2 cents as a traffic engineer on why certain cities have made their main thoroughfare one-way, and the impact on traffic and safety.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The reasons why certain streets have been made one-way</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, let's get a particular case out of the way. Certain residential streets in dense areas have been made one-way not for any traffic engineering reasons, but only because the street is relatively narrow and the planners wanted to have parking on both sides of the street, which didn't leave enough room for more than one travel lane in the center of the street.</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NrTa1htveUE/Vt5NvWaoxtI/AAAAAAAAEps/7r92PCWgeJg/s1600/ResidentialStreetPlateau.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="420" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NrTa1htveUE/Vt5NvWaoxtI/AAAAAAAAEps/7r92PCWgeJg/s640/ResidentialStreetPlateau.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>8-meter wide street in the Plateau-Mont-Royal with parking on both sides, leaving only about 3,5 to 4,0 meters for a travel lane in the middle of the street (12 to 13 feet)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the kind of design that tends to be present only in old, dense areas of cities, where buildings have no off-street parking spots, where streets are relatively narrow and are in a strong grid format, allowing for easy detours. In recent developments, these conditions are pretty rare, streets are rarely in a grid, streets tend to be wider and there tends to be more off-street parking.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some areas have also learned to use these one-way residential streets as a way to deter through traffic in residential areas, creating a maze of one-ways for cars despite the grid-like street network. Especially when a street's one-way direction changes, forcing people off the street to continue ahead.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, this type of one-way street tends to be of limited applicability. So let's look at a more contentious application, namely the one-way arterial.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1E6MBjDFkKs/Vt5QyhvRKJI/AAAAAAAAEp4/AslUJvDXjlI/s1600/1WarterialSteCatherine.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="380" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1E6MBjDFkKs/Vt5QyhvRKJI/AAAAAAAAEp4/AslUJvDXjlI/s640/1WarterialSteCatherine.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Ste-Catherine street, 2-lane one-way arterial street with parking on either side</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dez5bYN3a3k/Vt5RJFf59kI/AAAAAAAAEp8/EauZZ4SApyc/s1600/1WarterialMaisonneuve.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="382" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dez5bYN3a3k/Vt5RJFf59kI/AAAAAAAAEp8/EauZZ4SApyc/s640/1WarterialMaisonneuve.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Maisonneuve, the "companion" to the above, being one-way in the other direction</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK, so what is the main point explaining why an arterial would be made one-way?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You might have expected it, it's about throughput capacity mainly. The main reason why one-way streets perform better capacity-wise is that what limits street capacity is intersections, and left turns especially can have a deleterious impact on capacity due to the conflict with vehicles coming from the opposite way. Left-turning vehicles therefore have to either wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, or have a separate phase (during which the flow of vehicle coming the other way will be interrupted). This is especially bad when the number of left-turning vehicles is high and when they share a lane with vehicles going straight.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With one-way streets, there is no issue with left-hand turns, they have the equivalent of a permanent priority phase. </div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wI-N2cN8uts/Vt-SBbSQqnI/AAAAAAAAEqw/dq1Pc_u7jfE/s1600/2LaneCompare.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="406" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wI-N2cN8uts/Vt-SBbSQqnI/AAAAAAAAEqw/dq1Pc_u7jfE/s640/2LaneCompare.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Depending on the number of left-turning vehicles, the second design probably has a capacity 20 to 40% higher than the first</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What if you have a lane for left-hand turns only? Like the famous "road diet" design with one lane allowing straight and right-turns and a lane only for left-hand turns? Well, in that case, the effect of going one-way is even greater as it allows to have three lanes in each direction rather than just two, increasing throughput by at least 50%.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BvSHhADvn4Y/Vt-SGR--wvI/AAAAAAAAEq0/LwkKVD2qoNQ/s1600/3lanecompare.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="470" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BvSHhADvn4Y/Vt-SGR--wvI/AAAAAAAAEq0/LwkKVD2qoNQ/s640/3lanecompare.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In this case, the second design actually increases capacity by at least 50% without requiring any wider street</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So that's an obvious reason why traffic engineers find the one-way solution so attractive. When the goal is to move as many vehicles as possible in an hour, it is a very good solution. When the street is not capacity-constrained though, one-ways impose detours and can be annoying for drivers. But what are the effects of one-way streets aside from capacity? Are they safer or more dangerous?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Impact on speed</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All else being equal, one-way streets are likely to result in faster speed in vehicles. Why is that? Because you are increasing the number of lanes per direction per street. When there is only the one lane going in one direction, the speed of traffic will actually be determined by the slower drivers, because drivers who tend to drive faster will be stuck behind them, not being able to pass. This keeps speeds low, obviously. When there are two lanes per direction, faster drivers have the ability to pass slower drivers, not only does this allow them to drive faster, but the effect of many cars passing slow drivers might intimidate these to speed up to match the speed of other vehicles on the road. In effect, traffic speed is determined by the faster drivers.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So the more lanes per direction on a street there are, the higher the speed is likely to be. It's not the only factor, but it's an important one.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Higher speed is actually a mixed bag. For the traffic engineer, higher speed means higher mobility, which is generally an objective of their job. However, higher speeds in urban areas can mean more noise and more serious accidents, because kinetic energy increases with speed to the power of 2.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I know what some will say: why the hell would I want faster streets in my city? That's a good question, but in the end, in the modern economy, you need reasonable fast mobility for some trips in order to be able to tie regions together economically. Not all streets need to be fast, but some reasonably fast streets make sense to facilitate longer distances, and also to enable faster transit. In Montréal, it isn't rare for bus lines on one-way streets to be 50% faster than similar bus lines on similar streets that happen to be two-way streets. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Impact on accident risks</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So one-way arterials are likely to have higher speeds compared to similarly wide two-way arterials, does that mean they're more likely to have crashes? Not really. Higher speeds tend to increase the likelihood of severe injuries in crashes, but not really increase the likelihood of crashes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For pedestrians, one-way streets are actually not that bad, because they simplify vehicle movements, so they only have to look in one direction before crossing, whether at intersections or mid-block. This increases predictability for pedestrians, which is crucial for safe decision-making.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Also, one-way streets avoid one major issue that is often seen at intersections with traffic lights, the left hook. The issue here occurs during regular green lights that allow left turns while oncoming traffic still has its green, meaning the regular round solid green light. Drivers turning left thus have to wait in their lane for a gap in the traffic in front of them, which is where their attention will be concentrated.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dwnKxfHSXcQ/Vt-Wf8p-4PI/AAAAAAAAErM/3-ncb0jGuAE/s1600/LeftHook1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dwnKxfHSXcQ/Vt-Wf8p-4PI/AAAAAAAAErM/3-ncb0jGuAE/s640/LeftHook1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When the driver sees a gap in the traffic in front, especially if traffic is heavy and he is frustrated, he will quickly exploit that gap and accelerate quickly to turn left across oncoming traffic. Meanwhile, not only was his attention not to his left, but the traffic is likely to have impaired his visibility of the pedestrian crossing to his left... </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g6u4Y7qGX1U/Vt-WfzkwHQI/AAAAAAAAErE/qDhIzucHGBo/s1600/LeftHook2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="324" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g6u4Y7qGX1U/Vt-WfzkwHQI/AAAAAAAAErE/qDhIzucHGBo/s640/LeftHook2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So if a pedestrian was crossing the street at the same time (or worse, a cyclist), you will have a dangerous situation where the left-turning driver is accelerating quickly towards a pedestrian he has not yet seen, which may result in a dangerous crash. Even if the driver manages to stop before hitting the pedestrian, he becomes vulnerable to a side crash by the oncoming vehicle to his right.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f8DGCZwLBsA/Vt-Wf4CF4LI/AAAAAAAAErI/jWkPTy55bYA/s1600/LeftHook3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f8DGCZwLBsA/Vt-Wf4CF4LI/AAAAAAAAErI/jWkPTy55bYA/s640/LeftHook3.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With one-way streets, since there is no oncoming traffic, left-turning drivers will tend to keep their attention to their left, where they are going, which puts any crossing pedestrian well within their line of sight. Since they also don't need to exploit a gap, they may also accelerate slower, without a feeling of urgency.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So this is all theoretical, do we have some empirical data? Well, more or less. Recently, a graph of pedestrian crash hot spots was made of Montréal, and I used my own knowledge of the streets to identify one-ways and two-way streets, superposing both to see if a pattern can be found:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca8WxBtUMAAUugz.jpg:large" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca8WxBtUMAAUugz.jpg:large" width="592" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In yellow, one-way streets, in green, two-way streets</i><u><br /></u></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I know from experience too that there are tons of pedestrians on all streets I've identified, so you can't explain away the discrepancy with the number of pedestrians. At worst, you can say there is no great difference in accidents between one-way and two-way streets, at best, you can notice a trend toward a lesser number of accidents on one-way streets. So I guess it confirms my intuition that one-way streets, for a similar number of lanes, do not decrease pedestrian safety, but are likely to increase it somewhat, at least at intersections.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Impact on trucks</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, say hello to my "friend" the WB-20 (Which due to my job I have dubbed in French the MCAM.... Maudit Camion À Marde... Goddamn Fucking Truck):</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2yirrDqrWl8/Vt-wDM0mBkI/AAAAAAAAErc/NgSGJDN6B0U/s1600/WB-20.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2yirrDqrWl8/Vt-wDM0mBkI/AAAAAAAAErc/NgSGJDN6B0U/s640/WB-20.JPG" width="464" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Turning template of the WB-20</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is a WB-20? It is the term used to describe the design vehicle for which all roads that receive Federal funding in the US have to be designed. It represents a semi-truck pulling a 53-foot trailer behind it. This is the usual truck size in the US, and since Canada is the US' toy poodle, the US standard has also been adopted north of the border.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This truck is the death of old towns. Why? Because to simplify freight, trucking companies much prefer to stick to the 53-foot trailer size, even for local deliveries. But city streets aren't made for such huge behemoths, even North American main streets. This might be part of the reason why many stores prefer the periphery over a main street location, to avoid the hassle of having 53-foot trailers making deliveries down narrow streets. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In comparison, most of Europe limits trailer sizes to 12 meters (40 feet), which North American norms call a WB-15, which turns much better:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ytnVpW3-zDI/Vt-ynLKjjNI/AAAAAAAAEro/5eCLP-8csUA/s1600/WB-20vsWB-15.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ytnVpW3-zDI/Vt-ynLKjjNI/AAAAAAAAEro/5eCLP-8csUA/s640/WB-20vsWB-15.JPG" width="620" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In orange, the turning template of the WB-15 superposed on that of the WB-20</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Note that an alternative might have been to adopt a standard of trucks pulling two shorter trailers, which, like articulated buses, result in a better turning area:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gHSVPqOciUw/Vt_A2DmaPWI/AAAAAAAAEtA/bnmtXThi2rw/s1600/WB-20D.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gHSVPqOciUw/Vt_A2DmaPWI/AAAAAAAAEtA/bnmtXThi2rw/s640/WB-20D.JPG" width="490" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The WB-20D, same capacity as a WB-20, but much better turner</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RYExRQh4R2s/Vt_A-YyZctI/AAAAAAAAEtI/U_-iXoHnqOQ/s1600/WB-20vsWB-20D.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RYExRQh4R2s/Vt_A-YyZctI/AAAAAAAAEtI/U_-iXoHnqOQ/s640/WB-20vsWB-20D.JPG" width="626" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In red the turning area of a WB-20D, superposed over a WB-20.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, the WB-20 standard also explains why most highways have extremely wide curbs at intersections, exactly to allow this kind of vehicle to turn.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately, these trucks are the lifeblood of the economy. They deliver materials to factories then deliver goods to businesses. It sucks, but it is what it is, if you want a city to be economically viable, it is best to find a way to welcome these huge trucks on streets. Yes, I know it would be best to force truck companies to use smaller trucks in cities, but unless the regulation is made at the national level, I doubt it would be enforceable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let's look what a turning WB-20 would look like on a "road diet" street with 1 lane per direction plus a center lane for left turns and space for parked cars on either side (about 13 meters wide minimum, 44 feet):</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g4eQGx-a5IY/Vt_AL3e-aJI/AAAAAAAAEs4/Hg_u3USTLiM/s1600/WB20on3lane2way.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="458" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g4eQGx-a5IY/Vt_AL3e-aJI/AAAAAAAAEs4/Hg_u3USTLiM/s640/WB20on3lane2way.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Notice the problem? A truck in its right lane turning right would need to get on the wrong side of the street for nearly 20 meters (nearly 70 feet). Since there may be cars stopped at the stop line, that stop line would have to be pushed WAY back. It's obviously not a comfortable situation for anyone. You could also widen the street with a big curb at the corner...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ez2cbMcSZt4/Vt_ACQh55sI/AAAAAAAAEs0/xia8_-hFc6o/s1600/AlternativeWB202way.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="502" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ez2cbMcSZt4/Vt_ACQh55sI/AAAAAAAAEs0/xia8_-hFc6o/s640/AlternativeWB202way.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But in many ways the cure is worse than the disease, especially since pedestrian crossing length would jump from about 14 meters to 22 meters if done on all corners. If you think this is just theoretical, think again, why do you think intersections like these ones are made?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q8xesTdH6Vk/Vt-6Fa781xI/AAAAAAAAEsc/nKaS1EEAg_k/s1600/Example1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="520" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q8xesTdH6Vk/Vt-6Fa781xI/AAAAAAAAEsc/nKaS1EEAg_k/s640/Example1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iFW1Mcqxcx0/Vt-6FfMDY2I/AAAAAAAAEsY/cB5Vu3ZyFjk/s1600/Example2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="498" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iFW1Mcqxcx0/Vt-6FfMDY2I/AAAAAAAAEsY/cB5Vu3ZyFjk/s640/Example2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FYiwg8CtU3M/Vt-6FWtqsfI/AAAAAAAAEsU/F0Dh56SAq9s/s1600/Example3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="570" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FYiwg8CtU3M/Vt-6FWtqsfI/AAAAAAAAEsU/F0Dh56SAq9s/s640/Example3.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dNzI0MLcyew/Vt-6Fp2FFbI/AAAAAAAAEsg/NF4Hirhmv84/s1600/Example4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="546" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dNzI0MLcyew/Vt-6Fp2FFbI/AAAAAAAAEsg/NF4Hirhmv84/s640/Example4.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, let's look at that same WB-20 turning with one-way streets of the same width:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sF_Sli-4fEI/Vt-_9jf3IdI/AAAAAAAAEsw/1bEj6PNhfzQ/s1600/WB20on3lane1way.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="520" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sF_Sli-4fEI/Vt-_9jf3IdI/AAAAAAAAEsw/1bEj6PNhfzQ/s640/WB20on3lane1way.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here, there is no problem, even if the truck goes into the center or left lane, as they also go in the same direction, it can easily go there without any danger to anyone. So one-way streets are a way to allow big trucks into cities without transforming intersections into the abominations I just showed, while maintaining adequate pedestrian safety.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Conclusion</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One-way streets are certainly not the best solution everywhere in a city. However, I do believe that it would be foolish to turn our back on them, they are a good solution to a particular problem, namely how to deal with long North American trucks and provide adequately fast streets for longer distances, both for cars and for buses. In fact, I think that this design in urban areas is far preferable to the huge 6-lane arterial which we unfortunately see too often in suburbs.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-udJVnKX05CI/Vt_DNMIwTLI/AAAAAAAAEtY/MTBgmjF_aZo/s1600/SuburbanStrip.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-udJVnKX05CI/Vt_DNMIwTLI/AAAAAAAAEtY/MTBgmjF_aZo/s640/SuburbanStrip.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The kind of suburban arterial that could and should be replaced by a pair of 3-lane one-way streets separated by 100 meters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, on commercial main streets where the focus should be on pedestrians and slow traffic, two-way streets are the better solution.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-2223367338208775982016-01-31T18:44:00.003-05:002016-02-12T17:35:43.053-05:00Thought experiment: a politically feasible way to introduce a parking market<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of the most blatant subsidies to car use is undoubtedly the parking subsidy. Parking can be very expensive, with parking in garages, both underground and overground, often being more expensive than the car that is parked therein. So, it would be best for parking to be priced to reflect its costs, a price that the user would have to pay. The best way to do so, I think, is through a parking market, allowing people to trade parking spaces and thus determine an adequate price for them, that often reflects their actual cost.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I've spoken a lot about this, but I've never really talked about it considering practical political concerns. Meaning, how can a parking market actually be implemented in our cities considering the current political climate?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, I like the proof of parking system in Japan very much, but it's a system that relies on a population more used to paying for what they use and in a country where street parking is largely banned. In North America, street parking is frequently used, and even when it's not, it's available as a possibility in most cases for residents, and people aren't used to paying for parking.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So here is the result of my reasoning, how I think introducing a parking market can be possible, at least, for residential parking.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
First hurdle: dealing with street parking</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Street parking is, without a doubt, the single most difficult obstacle to deal with, because the possibility of it can serve as a free alternative provided by the government, so it can short circuit the entire parking market. Why pay for something when you can get it for free? So we have to find a way to integrate street parking into the market.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some places have introduced street parking permits people have to buy, but this is far from ideal, because residents as a whole dislike them (unless the majority of residents do not own cars), the price of these permits tends to become a political issue (so not following the market's logic) and it doesn't quantify the number of parking spots, in most cases, there is no limit to the number of permits cities will issue.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, the question then becomes: how to introduce a limited number of parking permits, while leaving its pricing out of the hand of elected representatives, all in a way that current residents won't see as a slight on their ability to park?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, I may have an answer, inspired by what happened in the densification of the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in Arlington. I think it is an approach that:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li>Does not have government directly charging for parking</li>
<li>Does not remove parking rights from current homeowners in the area (though condo owners and renters will face a parking squeeze)</li>
<li>Quantifies the number of parking spots and allows for them to be traded on an open market</li>
<li>Does not require complex and expensive enforcement, residents will do the enforcing themselves </li>
</ol>
OK, so what is it? <b>Issuing free parking permits to each property owner depending on the street-fronting width of their lot.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Here is an example, take this area:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fHjp1wV2p8s/Vq5v6HzbwpI/AAAAAAAAEoI/FFWkgNkLzlk/s1600/ExampleParkingWidth.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fHjp1wV2p8s/Vq5v6HzbwpI/AAAAAAAAEoI/FFWkgNkLzlk/s640/ExampleParkingWidth.PNG" width="528" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Example for parking permits based on street fronting width</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So you have 8 houses on lots of varying widths. Well, let's say that you say that you need 6 meters of curb for each car parked on the street. Well, then you divide the width of each lot by 6 meters and that gives you the number of parking permits each homeowner gets.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, in the example, the owners of lots 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 all get 2 parking permits (12m divided by 6m = 2). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Owners of lots 1 and 4 get 3 permits each (18m divided by 6m = 3).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The owner of lot 7 gets 4 permits (24m divided by 6m = 4).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These permits can be distributed yearly and may be simple plastic cards to hang on the rear view mirror, so they can be handed to visitors. That way, neighbors can also ask each other to lend them the permits if they expect a lot of visitors. People could also sell their parking permit for the year or rent them, in case they don't need them, which creates a resale market for parking permits.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since these permits are freely given to homeowners, the acceptation level may be high, because people may see it not as a restriction on their right to park on the street, but as a protection of their right to park on the street ("I'm guaranteed two available spots on the street" rather than "I'm limited to two spots on the street"). Street parking thus becomes a right that comes with owning property, and as bigger lots tend to pay higher property taxes (especially if in combination with a frontage tax), the cost of street parking gets integrated into the taxes of each property owner. Since the parking is provided by the city, this is defensible on an user-payer approach.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>What about apartments?</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this scenario, the owner would still get the permits, then distribute them how he sees fit to his renters. These could be included in rental contracts or rented apart from the apartment. So if a landlord has 3 parking permits and 6 units, he can offer his parking permits separately, so renters who want one have to apply for one, and if his renters are not interested, he can rent them out on the open market.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>What about condos?</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this case, the condo association is the one receiving the permits, and the distribution of these permits is to be sorted out among the different condo owners. Again, the city government doesn't decide these things, it just issues the permits and lets the condo owners decide. Arguably, it's better for new condo constructions, because the condo builder can sell these parking permits apart from the condos, which leads to less problem for condo associations.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b> </b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>What about enforcement?</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Active enforcement of this system is not really required. Enforcement can be reactive, meaning that if there are problems with parking, then permit owners themselves will complain to the police and call them to verify the cars parked on the street. This does mean that in low-density areas, the rule may not even be applied, not changing the status quo... and that's positive for acceptation, I think.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<i><b>What about fractional permits?</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
This is the biggest problem with this approach. In the previous example, I made it simple, each lot width was a multiple of the width associated with a permit, but in real-life, it's not going to be the case. For example, what if instead of 1 permit per 6 meters, we had 1 permit per 10 meters, to take into account driveways and fire hydrants? Well then, you'd have:<br />
<br />
Houses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 deserve 1,2 permit each.<br />
Houses 1 and 4 deserve 1,8 permit each.<br />
House 7 deserves 2,4 permit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Overall, you have 12 permits maximum. Houses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 all get 1 guaranteed, house 1 and 4 get 1 too, and house 7 gets 2 guaranteed. That makes 9, leaving 3 permits in surplus, so you look at the fractions, house 1 and 4 thus get an additional permit because their fractions are higher than others (0,8 versus 0,4 and 0,2), and the last one goes to house 7.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What if all houses have similar widths? Well, you can either use the surplus permits to have a visitor section that doesn't require permits or organize an auction for them (distributing the proceeds as property tax rebates for people with fractional parking permits).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Advantages</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The advantage of this system is how adaptable it is. It is a rule that can work both for low-density housing situations and for high-density areas, and that is, I believe, somewhat likely to be acceptable for residents in both situations. In low-density areas, these permits have very little impact, in high-density areas, they become more restrictive. So this is a rule that evolves with cities and that doesn't require sporadic reforms or arbitrary interventions by politicians or officials in order to work. By allowing permits to be traded on an open market rather than having a fixed price, you also take away the government decision-making that makes parking prices so politically contentious.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b> </b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This approach also quantifies street parking supply by limiting it with permits, and so can help lead to the establishment of a proper parking market that will create a pricing dynamic for parking spaces.</div>
<br />
<h3>
Second hurdle: dealing with parking requirements</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unlike in Japan, where people see no issue leaving it to car owners to find a place to park their cars, North America and Europe tend to prefer "upstream" solutions to that issue. So instead of leaving car owners with that responsibility, we prefer to heap as many restrictions and rules on developers as possible. These restrictions are thus invisible to most people, as only developers have to deal with them directly. Whether that's a good or bad decision, that's up to everyone to decide (I vote: bad thing).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hence why we have parking requirements for new constructions, so that the responsibility of finding parking spaces for the occupant is actually on the developer, and not on the occupant himself. So, how can we establish a parking market in that context, while maintaining the upstream parking controls we apparently like as societies?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The answer that seems apparent to me is to simply allow for a transfer of parking to satisfy parking requirements. Simply change the rule that off-street parking has to be provided on the same lot as a new construction, and allow for any parking spot within a certain radius to be used, if the developer buys the rights to it from the current owner.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, for example, if someone has a double-width driveway and there is a vacant lot next door:</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-akWbt81GucU/Vq6WQx-9nCI/AAAAAAAAEoo/2mDG7EeMITY/s1600/ExampleParkingTransfer.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-akWbt81GucU/Vq6WQx-9nCI/AAAAAAAAEoo/2mDG7EeMITY/s640/ExampleParkingTransfer.PNG" width="570" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Single-family house with a double-width driveway, deep enough for 4 parking spots, next to a vacant lot</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now let's say a developer wants to build a triplex on the lot next door, but due to limitations on curb cuts and a 2 parking per unit limit, he can't really build 6 parking spaces on that lot. However, the single-family house owner no longer uses all his parking spots, so the developer can approach him and offer to buy half his driveway for, say, 5 000 or 10 000$. If the owner agrees, then the triplex can be built:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yOG_TtyaUZU/Vq6W65Q5_AI/AAAAAAAAEo0/NzlqEiZ0LZ4/s1600/ExampleParkingTransfer2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yOG_TtyaUZU/Vq6W65Q5_AI/AAAAAAAAEo0/NzlqEiZ0LZ4/s640/ExampleParkingTransfer2.PNG" width="574" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The triplex can go ahead thanks to a parking transfer</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, such a system allows for a gradual reduction of parking spaces over time, as long as you do not enforce parking requirements on existing buildings after a few years, because you can still have minimum parking requirements for new developments that require more parking spots than can be reasonably expected, and 2-3 years later, the unused parking spots can be sold to developers who will need to satisfy high parking requirements. By attrition, the number of parking spots per unit can be reduced, adapting to the situation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The advantage of a system like that versus a simple reduction of parking minimums (though both can and should come together) is that it provides a financial incentive for many residents to actually support such a change, because it may allow them to sell their unused parking and make potentially thousands of dollars. It won't short-circuit the die-hard NIMBYs, who care only about status, but it may create a group of people who will support the change because of that financial incentive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It also allows for off-site parking lots to be built to satisfy multi-family developments in areas with a lot of redevelopment pressures. If there is a lot of demand from developers for parking, one developer could ostensibly take over a vacant lot, or one with a low market value, and transform it into a parking lot to satisfy parking requirements for the entire bloc.<br />
<br />
This has a big advantage of allowing small-scale developments in densely-built areas, even with some off-street parking requirements. A big problem of low-rise walk-ups in dense urban areas right now is the parking requirement, even if it's just 0,5 space per unit, it's nearly impossible to have underground parking to satisfy this requirement in a way that isn't absolutely dreadful. The only way (without rear alleys) is to have front-loading slip-under garages like this:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DHqdQcSvv-w/Vq913DIvEOI/AAAAAAAAEpI/PvuSemm3FgE/s1600/LRwalkupWpkg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="254" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DHqdQcSvv-w/Vq913DIvEOI/AAAAAAAAEpI/PvuSemm3FgE/s640/LRwalkupWpkg.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Low-rise walk-ups in Montréal, built in the era of parking requirements</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Whereas large-scale buildings can have an entire parking lot with a single entry point for the entire building, which at least avoids having walls of garage doors at ground level:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XM5DtQpMrWo/Vq92xCAQJ-I/AAAAAAAAEpQ/4b4UDFz30EY/s1600/MR1parkingentry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="408" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XM5DtQpMrWo/Vq92xCAQJ-I/AAAAAAAAEpQ/4b4UDFz30EY/s640/MR1parkingentry.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Mid-rise 130-meter wide building in Montréal, with just one curb cut to enter the parking garage underneath</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
With the ability to satisfy parking requirements with parking transfers, in such an area, you could have a developer build a single 2 or 3 story parking garage, with a small setback and hidden from the street by trees, and therefore satisfy the parking requirements for an entire bloc or two of small low-rise buildings, attached or detached, maybe even at a more affordable price tag.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-9710798802746495452016-01-26T02:32:00.002-05:002016-10-18T14:05:39.402-04:00Visualization of urban housing dynamics<div style="text-align: justify;">
So I've been talking a lot about my understanding of the dynamics of the housing market (though it's a bit of a misnomer... commercial uses also follow the same dynamics). However, I've been doing so largely with long blocks of texts, which may be daunting to read and understand, especially as the subject is complicated. Like a lot of people, I often understand concepts better visually, so I decided to draw a schema of what I think the housing market is like, and how developers and urban planners interact.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the end, this is what I ended up with, if you follow me on Twitter, you would have already seen it:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ln5s0VKX2mE/VqQrbU3aBLI/AAAAAAAAEm0/wSu0bK_TAco/s1600/Schema.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ln5s0VKX2mE/VqQrbU3aBLI/AAAAAAAAEm0/wSu0bK_TAco/s640/Schema.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>My understanding of the dynamics of the housing market</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, let me break things down a bit, to explain how I think it works. I'm not an expert, so I'm open to criticism, but I think this tool might be really useful to understand the ramifications of housing policies.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Three different inter-related processes</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You may notice there are three different squares, each identified differently: "MARKET", "PLANNERS - CITY" and "DEVELOPERS". These are three different spheres of influence with their own internal logic which are inter-related.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8GUGuqnh0v4/VqceObhNifI/AAAAAAAAEnU/lSy5Wbm_Jwo/s1600/MArketSoI.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8GUGuqnh0v4/VqceObhNifI/AAAAAAAAEnU/lSy5Wbm_Jwo/s1600/MArketSoI.JPG" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <b>"MARKET"</b> sphere of influence illustrates a simple process: how housing prices are fixed. For this process, the things that matter are demand for housing and housing supply. In other words, how many people want to purchase a type of housing and what are their purchasing power, and the actual amount of housing that corresponds to those desires. Unlike, say, electricity, housing is not one very specific good, it is very varied, someone who wants a house to raise a family in will not buy a studio apartment. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Things like transport infrastructure, commute time, proximity to stores, air and noise pollution, quality of schools, etc... will all have an incidence on demand for specific housing. So if I wanted to, I could expand very widely the number of actors who have an influence on demand for housing, but I wanted to keep it simple, so it's all summed up under "demand for housing".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The decision-makers in this sphere of influence are many. The concept of "market" itself is just an abstraction for the sum of economic decisions of millions of people. In theory, everyone who either owns an housing unit, rents one or wishes to buy one is involved in the market. However, I think the biggest deciders are people actively looking for a house, those actively looking for a buyer for their property and speculators who, depending on the market, will buy or sell in order to make a profit from that process.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The output of that sphere of influence is the market value of housing: how much a specific type of housing is worth, how high a price it can be at and still find a buyer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9x8nQmWSsBc/VqceSlfao-I/AAAAAAAAEnc/DBlDh__KoYo/s1600/PlanningSoI.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9x8nQmWSsBc/VqceSlfao-I/AAAAAAAAEnc/DBlDh__KoYo/s1600/PlanningSoI.JPG" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <b>"PLANNERS - CITY" </b>sphere of influence illustrates how most regulations affect housing economics. Namely, regulations and technological possibilities combines determine what it is possible to build, at what cost, and where. For example, thanks to modern technology, we can build buildings more than 4 stories tall without too much problem, however, due to the norms we have, we generally force tall buildings to conform to strict building rules that require more onerous construction methods (for example, concrete buildings rather than wooden-framed buildings and the inclusion of systems like sprinklers).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This also includes zoning regulations that forbid certain types of building and so sometimes push the construction cost of buildings into infinity, because it will simply not happen. It also includes all development charges or other costs that may be required of someone who desires to build something. There is also the issue of the cost of land, which may include the market value of the buildings on that land currently, but I try to make it as simple as possible.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The output of that sphere of influence is determining what building a new housing unit will cost, including regulatory costs, land, labor and material.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0CeB9vVJjw4/VqceojRe5VI/AAAAAAAAEnk/3XkJDRqHMls/s1600/DevelopperSoI.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="142" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0CeB9vVJjw4/VqceojRe5VI/AAAAAAAAEnk/3XkJDRqHMls/s640/DevelopperSoI.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <b>"DEVELOPERS"</b> sphere of influence is where the magic really happens. In the end, the ones who build cities are the developers, and the process for deciding what to build, if anything, actually involves the output of the two earlier processes. Developers have to take into account the market value of housing, which helps them determine the price what they build will fetch on the market, depending on housing type and location, but they also have to take into account the actual cost of building that housing type in the current regulatory, technological and economical context.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When the construction cost of housing is lower than the market value, then that means that developers can make money doing it. And a developer can no more work without a profit than a worker can work without wages. So if the construction cost of housing is HIGHER than the market value, then building it would mean the developer would actually lose money. They're not going to do that, they have to eat too.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So the output of the housing market and of the regulatory process actually decide if the developers build, and what they build. The output of this process is new housing, which will, in return, change the housing supply and therefore affect the market value for housing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Ramifications</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what is the point of this schema? Well,
housing economics have to be understood as three connected processes, involving at least three different decision-makers, all of whom have direct or indirect influences on the end result of what type of housing is built and at what price. Often, people limit their criticism to the developers, as they are the one actually making the physical building, but developers are in fact often at the tail-end of the entire affair, they're responding to market values and to construction costs dictated by local governments. However, the developers cannot be forced to do anything, they always have the option to opt out and do nothing and they will if they have no way of earning income (profits) on projects.<br />
<br />
Some people thus conclude that developers are greedy and self-interested, but every one else is also greedy and self-interested. Property owners want to sell their property as high as possible, prospective buyers want to pay the lowest price possible, elected representatives want to keep their job by appealing to their voters, why single out developers? Ultimately, economics is not a moral play, if you have a desired outcome, then you need to look at the actual levers that you have to influence the system in the desired direction, to reward people for doing what is socially desirable.<br />
<br />
So if you want lower market value of housing, then you can either increase supply or decrease demand. To increase supply, the only way to do so is to incentivize developers to build more and faster, and to achieve that, then you need to make it possible for them to build at a lower cost, which is the opposite of what generally happens, as people try to squeeze every penny out of the "greedy" developers.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You can also look at what makes high-demand areas so desirable and try to increase the supply of such desirable locations. For example, if transit-friendly urban areas are in demand, building new transit lines can expand the amount of locations that share this desirable trait.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another important thing this schema tells us is the sphere of influence of public policy. Too often, people want regulations to fix market value (rent control for instance) or to dictate developers to do certain things (through Affordable Housing rules or even direct public housing construction), but that's not the natural influence of public policy, which is determining the construction cost of future projects. That's the main vector of public policy and planning, when you try to go outside of that, then you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and creating a lot of unintended consequences. Yet, people next to never talk about these primary effects of public policy, and that is why most housing markets are screwed up.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So this schema tells us to consider public policy mainly as to how it impacts the construction cost of future housing projects, and to stop trying to intrude so much in the other processes. I think this would restore some sanity to the housing market in major cities.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-6477227931612126452016-01-18T01:05:00.000-05:002016-01-18T01:05:11.522-05:00The golden cage trap<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a revival of interest towards urban design in the West right now, that much is hard to deny. Much of it is the result of a lot of individual realization of the attractiveness of traditional urban designs, whether they be European villages, American small towns, traditional streetcar suburbs or big city downtowns. Meaning that people raised in soulless suburbia face an awakening when they experience for the first time a human-centric urban design, either on vacation, or while out of town for their studies or for their first job. (My own personal awakening comes from a trip to Japan, hence my focus on the country over and over as a model)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZEzrC7gC7_4/VpLuT0rMbKI/AAAAAAAAEkE/D7pb5rNRXpg/s1600/Taschereau.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="260" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZEzrC7gC7_4/VpLuT0rMbKI/AAAAAAAAEkE/D7pb5rNRXpg/s640/Taschereau.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span id="goog_696067293"></span><span id="goog_696067294"></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6zHFsCbnCYo/VpLubPPypyI/AAAAAAAAEkQ/8rS6A9orgc4/s1600/Lasalle2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="228" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6zHFsCbnCYo/VpLubPPypyI/AAAAAAAAEkQ/8rS6A9orgc4/s640/Lasalle2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Typical suburban commercial strips</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J_O-LEKsUHU/VpLukcHiP9I/AAAAAAAAEkc/DhstAaazOgU/s1600/Kyoto.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="472" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J_O-LEKsUHU/VpLukcHiP9I/AAAAAAAAEkc/DhstAaazOgU/s640/Kyoto.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Kyoto</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RMhgrtRVZdc/VpLuq4BpNNI/AAAAAAAAEko/kA9Cr4bG_HE/s1600/Vieux-Montr%25C3%25A9al.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="476" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RMhgrtRVZdc/VpLuq4BpNNI/AAAAAAAAEko/kA9Cr4bG_HE/s640/Vieux-Montr%25C3%25A9al.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Old Montréal</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q9WbH7JBtWQ/VpLu5udxUNI/AAAAAAAAEk0/HZnbqnLZnfA/s1600/Mont-Tremblant3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="418" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q9WbH7JBtWQ/VpLu5udxUNI/AAAAAAAAEk0/HZnbqnLZnfA/s640/Mont-Tremblant3.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Main street of Saint-Jovite, an old Québec town</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A lot of people who have had their interest in urbanism piqued by such experience frequently ask the same question: "Why can't we build more places like that where I live?". Their focus however is on reproducing the experience they had, the feel of the place, the shape of the buildings, etc... This leads to an architectural or superficial urban planning bias, where the most important is the look of a place, form over function.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a result, there is this intense focus in most urbanist discussions on the "feel" of a place rather than how it sits in a perspective of a functional, sustainable city. When developers and architects design areas based on that impulse, then they often fall into a trap, what I call the "golden cage" trap.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The "golden cage"</h3>
A golden cage, for me, is a neighborhood which feels very pleasant to live in, that offers a lot of comfort to residents. It's calm and peaceful, generally with a lot of greenery and trees, and maybe even bike paths and other infrastructure for outdoors activities. That is the "golden" part... the "cage" part is that the neighborhood is also isolated and cut off from most major economic activity centers. There are few jobs in the area, few stores, except for a few small ones, and poor transit mobility.<br />
<br />
As a result, very few people can live and work in the same neighborhood, and people have to leave the area frequently to accomplish most tasks of modern life like shopping, working and social activities. As a result of that and the lack of transit connection to the rest of the metropolitan area it is a part of, more trips require cars, which kill the life on the street and community areas, as most of the population is either in their private home or out of the neighborhood at all times.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Examples of golden cages</h3>
The most common example of the golden cage is the typical North American suburb, at least, well-designed ones. They often have parks and plenty of trees, sometimes offer bike paths and pleasant areas to walk through...<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wbXqUUApi9Q/VpMVqEmZkeI/AAAAAAAAElQ/x4VV2-Zxsgk/s1600/Boucherville2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="286" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wbXqUUApi9Q/VpMVqEmZkeI/AAAAAAAAElQ/x4VV2-Zxsgk/s640/Boucherville2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1a0cZZCcH8o/VpMVVd9xyVI/AAAAAAAAElI/4gZgJR9bn08/s1600/Boucherville1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="338" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1a0cZZCcH8o/VpMVVd9xyVI/AAAAAAAAElI/4gZgJR9bn08/s640/Boucherville1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wKgvpkZCkHs/VpMVVlqT1wI/AAAAAAAAElM/NgtKMpQoaDM/s1600/Boucherville3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="402" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wKgvpkZCkHs/VpMVVlqT1wI/AAAAAAAAElM/NgtKMpQoaDM/s640/Boucherville3.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Images from Boucherville, where I grew up. Nice place to have a walk or a bike ride, with plenty of parks, but nothing within walking distance and poor transit service, jobs and major stores are located at freeway interchanges outside the suburb itself</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
However, many New Urbanist developments are in fact not that much better. Since redeveloping areas is long and difficult, often, New Urbanist thinkers prefer greenfields development where they can build an entire neighborhood or small town from scratch, trying to replicate the success of old towns. However, these areas often end up being isolated and poorly services by transit, with poor access to the rest of the metro area.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lQGBNbgC9yk/VpMZofsqAeI/AAAAAAAAElc/WZKK78qwXh8/s1600/Seaside.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="324" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lQGBNbgC9yk/VpMZofsqAeI/AAAAAAAAElc/WZKK78qwXh8/s640/Seaside.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Seaside in Florida is an example of New Urbanist small town, designed from scratch...<a href="http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_S0801&prodType=table"> 92% drive or are driven to work, 5% work at home... 0,4% walk</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i></i></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MJH6WGtW684/VpxYkp0LmVI/AAAAAAAAElw/j0vNSc0YcnI/s1600/Seaside2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="370" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MJH6WGtW684/VpxYkp0LmVI/AAAAAAAAElw/j0vNSc0YcnI/s640/Seaside2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Seaside town center</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M31ELFcv8VQ/VpxYkyLcIpI/AAAAAAAAEl0/hwqgj_e6ybA/s1600/Seaside3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="380" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M31ELFcv8VQ/VpxYkyLcIpI/AAAAAAAAEl0/hwqgj_e6ybA/s640/Seaside3.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Seaside residential area</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I referred in my last post to the example of traditional American small towns as an example of a good, walkable development from the past. Seaside notably takes a direct inspiration from American small towns. However, these towns existed in another era where people mostly lived their entire lives, work and shopping included, in the same, small community. The modern world is not like that anymore, not at all. Ours is a world of massive economically integrated metropolitan areas with hundreds of thousands of people living, working and shopping there. As a result, it is essential for a well-functioning neighborhood to have reasonably fast access to other areas of metropolitan areas. If you don't offer good enough transit to offer that, then people will be forced into cars, and once they are into cars, then they will need parking, and once most people require parking, then every store or office will be isolated by an ocean of parking, contributing to the "golden cage" problem.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, many small towns in America and in Europe suffer from that, they have badly withstood the metropolitanisation of urban economies and have seen their residents start shopping and working outside their old downtown core. They have been hollowed out by this competition from job centers and stores on the periphery. If they want to preserve their vitality, they would need to have a car-less mobility option that could connect them efficiently with the rest of the metro area, not only for residents wishing to access the jobs and services of the rest of the metropolitan area but also for residents of other areas wishing to access that town's jobs and services.<br />
<br />
What doesn't help is that in most cases, transit is often seen as a municipal service, not a regional one. So transit companies tend to only cover cities and offer only limited interconnections with various urban areas or towns in the same metro area. The absence of regional intercity transit in North America is one of the biggest problems we face in my opinion.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Prescription</h3>
What I'm getting at is that an urban area's vitality depends on access, both the residents' access of other areas and other areas' access to it. An area cannot thrive only on good design. Take for example the 1980s' trend of pedestrian malls. Many cities in North America decided to create pedestrian-only outdoor malls from commercial arterials and invested a lot of money in good design to draw people in. These worked only for a while, but when the novelty effect ran out, they were largely abandoned... except the ones who were conveniently located and easily accessible by transit.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w7gwS6mJXtA/Vpx7_lDuNCI/AAAAAAAAEmI/C6Ke9B8_M1o/s1600/RuePrince-Arthur.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="390" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w7gwS6mJXtA/Vpx7_lDuNCI/AAAAAAAAEmI/C6Ke9B8_M1o/s640/RuePrince-Arthur.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Rue Prince-Arthur Est in Montréal, a pedestrian mall that is facing high vacancy rates, the problem is that the subway is a bit off, and on the way there, people walk alongside...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-e6NntQrF7VA/Vpx8R8ckOnI/AAAAAAAAEmQ/DLO7UlhTs8E/s1600/Saint-Denis2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="368" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-e6NntQrF7VA/Vpx8R8ckOnI/AAAAAAAAEmQ/DLO7UlhTs8E/s640/Saint-Denis2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>...Saint-Denis street, which is a vibrant commercial area with much better transit access and that gives access to a big urban college campus (UQÀM), even if the design is worse, the much better location makes it a winner</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Good urban design needs to be a second consideration after the issue of access, both to and from the area. A lot of architects and urbanists love talking about good design from the ground up, as if they had to build a city from scratch, but often the only areas that fulfill these criterias are isolated areas with poor access, exactly the kind of area that should not be prioritized for development projects. The real challenge and way forward is not greenfield development of that kind though, it is in redeveloping areas with good potential thanks to existing good access. In which case, often we are stuck with past decisions and must learn to deal with them. If you love rear alleys and the area doesn't have it, then you must find a way forward without alleys, and vice versa.<br />
<br />
Also, the issue of offering better car-less access across metropolitan areas and between regions is crucial and is one much too often ignored. All in all, we need to recreate the links between urban areas or to create new ones to increase transit accessibility, to open up the golden cages. And until then, we should avoid building new ones.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-84195809731483498272015-12-06T02:12:00.000-05:002015-12-06T02:12:15.119-05:00The Shoupian approach to street parking: applicability and critique<div style="text-align: justify;">
For those who do not know, Donald Shoup is an American expert of parking policy. He is also the author of the very important "The high cost of free parking", the foremost criticism of American parking policy practices, detailing the irrationality of off-street parking requirements and their negative impacts on American cities. Note: I have not read his book, but have been exposed to his ideas through other books (Suburban Nation, Walkable City) and in interviews of the man.<br />
<br />
One of his most famous recommendations is to implement a policy targeting a 85% occupancy rate for street parking by modulating parking prices. That is, by understanding parking demand as a price-responsive quantity, when parking is overloaded, prices can simply be increased to return to a desired occupancy rate by depressing demand. Why 85%? Because it's a good compromise between optimal use of the parking spots and allowing for drivers to find a parking spot easily, avoiding cars driving around for 5-10 minutes to find a parking spot. It also assists in turnover, allowing more people to park by limiting in time the duration each car remains parked.<br />
<br />
In a way, that's a bit like my Easy Solution to Congestion <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2015/09/tackling-congestion-as-economic-not.html">a few posts back</a>:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j1LkmslVZCE/Vf9gOhYlRQI/AAAAAAAAEVM/50WQzQSGO_M/s1600/Easysolutiontocongestion.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j1LkmslVZCE/Vf9gOhYlRQI/AAAAAAAAEVM/50WQzQSGO_M/s640/Easysolutiontocongestion.PNG" width="334" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Easy Solution to Congestion</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, this approach of targeting a certain occupancy rate by modulating price is what I call the Shoupian approach.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-27CGfa0nNBk/Vlvc6sdX9vI/AAAAAAAAEiM/aOupLVaDKRQ/s1600/ShoupianApproach.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-27CGfa0nNBk/Vlvc6sdX9vI/AAAAAAAAEiM/aOupLVaDKRQ/s640/ShoupianApproach.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A parking demand curve and the Shoupian Approach, the price that yields a 85% occupancy rate at that point in time is 0,65$ per hour</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Donald Shoup has promoted the use of automatic parking meters that could adjust prices in real time based on current occupancy.<br />
<br />
This approach was tailor-made for a particular situation common to North America where cities are trying to maintain their old main streets alive. These are areas built largely before parking minimums, with a lot of commercial uses. There may be a few parking lots, but for the most part, parking demand is satisfied through on-street parking.<br />
<br />
So I've been thinking about that proposal a bit, and I'd like to bring up a few things about it, because I do not think it's the best approach ever. It may be the best approach that is likely to be put in place, but there are a few things that annoy me a bit with it.<br />
<br />
But first, let me address something that is often erroneously claimed about it:<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Shoupian approach is not a market approach</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many people call the Shoupian approach a "market-based" approach because prices vary with demand. That is however not correct. In the Shoupian approach, the parking authority is still publicly-owned and parking is still a public service. So it's a monopoly situation with one parking provider.<br />
<br />
What defines a market is a great number of providers competing to provide a particular good and their profit motive. Their goal is to provide goods to satisfy demand at a price over the cost of production so that a profit can be obtained. These providers have one goal: maximize profits.<br />
<br />
So in a market, there is a companion to the demand curve, the supply curve. What the supply curve means is that when prices go higher, it entices new providers to enter the market and produce that particular good, thus increasing the quantity of it on the market. For example, if you're sitting on an oil well from which you can produce oil at 70$ a barrel, but oil is currently at 60$ a barrel on the world markets, you're going to keep sitting on it, why produce oil if you're just going to lose money on each barrel you produce (supposing you have no fixed cost)? If oil on the market increases to 80$ a barrel, THEN you will start producing as many barrels as you can sell.<br />
<br />
This creates a feedback system wherein higher prices for a good gets people to produce more of it, thus increasing supply and stabilizing the price (keeping it from rising).<br />
<br />
The Shoupian approach has no such feedback system, it supposes that parking supply is fixed, then determines a price to maintain a desired demand for it. In effect, <b>the Shoupian approach is a rationing system</b>, using price as a means of rationing.<br />
<br />
The lack of profit motive also has a major impact. Shoup admits that in most places, his approach actually results in free parking or in lower fees than are currently in place where parking is already metered. The price is chosen only for its ability to reach the desired 85% occupancy rate, so if the occupancy rate is below 85% even when parking is free, then parking should be free.<br />
<br />
A for-profit parking operator on the other hand doesn't target occupancy, he targets profit.<br />
<br />
For example, let's take this demand curve for parking at a point in time:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T5Xk90Awh30/Vlv1dcyuNgI/AAAAAAAAEic/AnadtKDVbFE/s1600/DemandCurve2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="424" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T5Xk90Awh30/Vlv1dcyuNgI/AAAAAAAAEic/AnadtKDVbFE/s640/DemandCurve2.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Example of a demand curve for parking (for a fixed supply of parking)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The Shoupian approach says the price of parking should be such that occupancy is 85%. Well, in this case, that price is 0$. So parking should be free.<br />
<br />
Now, let's put ourselves in the shoes of a for-profit parking operator. He wants to profit from his parking, that's all. So what he's going to do is simply multiply the occupancy rate by the price, then subtract the cost of enforcement of the parking charge (for example, an employee paid 15$/hour per 40 spots, making sure people pay their fare and calling the cops if they won't).<br />
<br />
In the end, he can get a new graph that looks like this:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SZOjPadG1X8/Vlv3DgncPhI/AAAAAAAAEio/jidi8ruamHE/s1600/Profitperspot.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="404" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SZOjPadG1X8/Vlv3DgncPhI/AAAAAAAAEio/jidi8ruamHE/s640/Profitperspot.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A profit graph relative to price set on the parking (note that since free parking doesn't necessitate enforcement, it doesn't lose money despite having no revenue)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So in this case, the for-profit operator would prefer a price of 1,75$/hour to maximize his profits.<br />
<br />
To sum up, the Shoupian parking operator starts from a desired occupancy rate, then fixes price according to it. The for-profit operator determines the prices that would yield the most profit and fixes it, and the actual occupancy rate is irrelevant to him (but if the occupancy rate is always low, he may look to unload some of his parking spots that don't earn him enough money, another effect of market feedbacks).<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jG1xIusV3_g/Vlv33SyXqHI/AAAAAAAAEiw/qfW7Hu4ejjo/s1600/ShoupVSProfit.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jG1xIusV3_g/Vlv33SyXqHI/AAAAAAAAEiw/qfW7Hu4ejjo/s640/ShoupVSProfit.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Shoupian and for-profit reasoning put on the graph of the demand curve</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So a for-profit parking system would generally result in much higher fees than a Shoupian approach, except in periods of very high demand. The Shoupian approach sees no problem with free parking, as long as demand remains low, because it sees parked cars as a good in itself. The more parked cars, the better, because that means more people coming into the area (for example: coming shopping).<br />
<br />
Note that if a for-profit owner owns both a building and its parking, he may also accept free parking because enticing more people to come park at the building is good for him as he gets profits from the building itself, so he may take a loss on his parking to get higher profits from the building he owns.<br />
<br />
Anyway, that leads to my first beef with the Shoupian approach...<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Shoupian approach is not a "user-payer" approach</h3>
"User-payer" means that the user of a particular good ought to pay a price at least equal to the cost of providing it. If something costs 2$ to provide, you should pay 2$ or more. When the "user-payer" principle isn't respected, it means that someone else is paying for that good, in effect, a subsidy. I'm not against a subsidy on principle (I do identify as a socialist), but subsidies encourage consumption of goods, so you need to be able to argue that encouraging that consumption satisfies social or moral objectives (for example: health care subsidies). In my view, encouraging the consumption of parking is not a good idea.<br />
<br />
The Shoupian approach just ignores completely the cost of providing the parking, it is completely irrelevant in its price-fixing reflexion. It even allows for free parking to exist. And even when there is a fee, Donald Shoup recommends the money NOT be used to pay for the maintenance of the parking spots, but to provide new amenities to the commercial area where the fees are collected (which makes it far more palatable for the community and thus helps social acceptance of the fees).<br />
<br />
The reason why a socialist like me is interested in a market-based system is because a for-profit operator by definition has to apply "user-payer". He cannot provide a good for less than it costs him to produce, or he would go bankrupt. Therefore, a market for parking achieves the objective of making car drivers pay the full cost of the parking they use.<br />
<br />
In a way, the Shoupian approach is like a congestion charge. It only applies to overloaded infrastructure, leaving under-used infrastructure free to use and subsidized by society. I criticized the congestion charge for this because it can lead to free highways in suburbs and expensive streets in cities, thus having the city subsidizing the suburbs. A Shoupian approach can have the same effect of leaving parking in low-density area free and subsidized while charging high prices for downtown parking. Parking in low-density areas are cheaper to provide, so it should be cheaper, but not subsidized, not free.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Shoupian approach doesn't help determine the quantity of parking</h3>
As I said, the Shoupian approach of targeting occupancy is essentially a rationing system. But a rationing system is generally used in a case of fixed supply. There is no mechanism to vary parking supply in reaction to price signals. Street parking is, in the end, a very dumb thing, even dumber than minimum parking requirements. Whether you are in suburbs or in the heart of a dense city, it provides roughly the same amount of parking per square kilometer (I estimated up to 5 000 spots per square kilometer, 13 000 per square mile). Some people pretend that this is essentially "free" space anyway, as if roads are going to be built wide enough to have cars parked on it anyway, but that's just not true. You can build narrower roads, for some density gains, or build bike paths or larger sidewalks with that space.<br />
<br />
If off-street parking requirements are ill-advised and unscientific, what would we say of planners building a fixed amount of street parking without regard to the land use expected in an area? But anyway, that is just my typical rant on street parking, let's move on...<br />
<br />
A market-based approach to parking on the other hand DOES provide a mechanism to determine the amount of parking to be built. You can probably estimate that if you build a parking spot in a given location where there was none, this spot will be occupied most of the time by a car (though depending on the land use around it, it may be free at night or during the day). But as you keep adding parking spots to a lot, each additional spot will be occupied less often than the previous one.<br />
<br />
Think of a shopping mall's parking, the spots near the doors are nearly always in use during the business hours, the spots at the farthest spot from the door are always empty, except maybe once every year. Well, a parking spot only generates revenue when a car is in it, whether through hourly fees or by the revenue generated by a customer (in the case of a free parking attached to a store). So it would stand to reason that a parking spot occupied 30% of the time would generate twice as much revenue as one occupied just 15% of the time, yet both are likely to cost the same to build and maintain.<br />
<br />
So again, an example, let's say someone builds a parking lot and estimates the marginal occupancy rate of parking spots this way: <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-By5BK2-ZLTs/Vl6Q5V2v69I/AAAAAAAAEjM/6N-m_G-o5is/s1600/MarginalOccupancy.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="474" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-By5BK2-ZLTs/Vl6Q5V2v69I/AAAAAAAAEjM/6N-m_G-o5is/s640/MarginalOccupancy.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Example of a marginal occupancy graph for the number of spots in a parking</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Well if he gives a flat value of 2$ per hour of revenue each hour a parking spot in in use, and he estimates that each parking spot has an annualized cost of 800$ (including annualized cost of land and construction, plus yearly maintenance and operation), then he could get the following graph:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UJrgyp9FdVs/Vl6RcSNg6cI/AAAAAAAAEjU/BuEr2vBoVjY/s1600/ParkingCostVSRevenue.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="470" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UJrgyp9FdVs/Vl6RcSNg6cI/AAAAAAAAEjU/BuEr2vBoVjY/s640/ParkingCostVSRevenue.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Marginal revenue vs annualized cost</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In that example, building more than 30 parking spots is wasteful because the revenue of each additional parking spot will be less than the annualized cost. So a smart developer will not build more than he can justify economically.<br />
<br />
OK, you don't actually need a market to do so. You could have a public parking authority that is asked to self-fund and it would follow the same logic, competition or not. I'm not opposed to the idea as such, but a market may be simpler to put in place.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The risk of "dumping" and disrupting the emergence of a parking market</h3>
So could the solution simply be to have on-street parking (and any potential publicly-owned parking lot) follow the Shoupian approach and let private developers develop a parallel parking market? Well, there is a big issue when doing that, because the two are in competition, yet do not share the same logic.<br />
<br />
The Shoupian approach is fine with free, subsidized parking as long as occupancy rate is below 85% if prices are zero and it won't follow the market prices if these result in less than an 85% occupancy. This creates a weird interplay with private parking options as you have different market participants with completely different behavior, one targeting an occupancy ratio, the others maximizing revenue.<br />
<br />
At times of great affluence, where every parking lot can be full, it can be workable, but in downtimes, the Shoupian operator will have no qualm about selling parking below cost to obtain its 85% occupancy ratio. This, in economic terms, is effectively dumping. Dumping is when a producer sells his product below cost in order to obtain a larger market share than his competitors, generally with the aim of pushing them to bankruptcy.<br />
<br />
In this situation, though there is no ill intent, it remains that the Shoupian parking authority will end up dumping its parking on the market, because it can and will sell its parking below cost to achieve its occupancy goal, to the detriment of private parking options.<br />
<br />
This dumping can reduce the revenues from private parking options and disrupt the creation of parking markets.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion </h3>
I get it, the Shoupian approach is made for a certain political and urban context in America. It is made to deal with areas where most parking is already provided by the city through street parking. It is a much better alternative to dealing with parking issues than parking requirements for developers. Basically, reduce demand at hours of great demand through rate hikes rather than increasing parking supply and keeping it free. I really do get it. And the idea of increasing fares when occupancy is above 85% makes sense.<br />
<br />
However, I'm not keen on the fact that it is also recommended to lower rates when occupancy is below 85%, even to make it free if need be. I understand the logic: people who come park there contribute to the local economy by shopping around, going to restaurants, etc... The policy seeks to maximize parking use to get more people to come... but personally, I don't want to maximize parking use, I would prefer for parking to be used less by having people come on foot, on a bike or on transit. I don't want to force them out of their cars, but I do want them to pay for parking on a "user-payer" basis to use price to signal how expensive cars are to accommodate in cities and to encourage other means of getting around. Free parking is one of the worst subsidies to car-driving, and the most significant one in urban areas, and it is one that the Shoupian approach can maintain as long as occupancy rates for free parking doesn't reach 85%. The underlying assumption seems to be that people who come to an area by car would never come to it through any other mode.<br />
<br />
In my ideal world, there would be no street parking at all, all parking would be provided through a for-profit market or by store owners willingly building parking (without being required to). However, in a more practical way, I do agree with Shoup that, when parking on the street is very rare, hiking the fare to lower occupancy rates on street parking to 85% is a good idea, but I would prefer for parking rates to have a floor, so that it never goes below a certain cost, no matter how low the occupancy gets. In other words, keep the current hourly rates, but have surge prices for times with high demand.<br />
<br />
Also, if there are private parking lots, I think it would be best to either include them in the surge prices or to have the parking authority actually match the market price of parking by copying the price private operators put on their parking.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-67463075750735561382015-11-16T09:27:00.000-05:002015-11-21T14:47:06.301-05:00Commercial or residential density: which is most important?<div style="text-align: justify;">
When people speak of density with regards to urbanism, most of the time, it is residential density they talk about: how many people live in a city per square kilometer/mile or hectare/acre. However, walkability is usually measured not by how many people reside near you, but by how many services and shops you can access from where you live. So to achieve great walkability, it would seem logical that commercial density is very, very important. After all, if all services and stores in an area are spread far apart, so that you cannot walk from one to another, it's likely the area would be unwalkable, there would be no place to live in where one could access all the services and shops to satisfy their needs. You could live next to a grocery or next to a few restaurants or next to the library, but you couldn't live in a place close to a grocery AND a few restaurants AND the library.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If one looks at old American small towns, in their old areas, the clash between commercial density and residential density can be quite significant.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a_BQ3SG3mgs/VkGIWTcyC3I/AAAAAAAAEd8/zkvdTzQN7k8/s1600/TradMainStreet-StCloudMin.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="410" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a_BQ3SG3mgs/VkGIWTcyC3I/AAAAAAAAEd8/zkvdTzQN7k8/s640/TradMainStreet-StCloudMin.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A traditional American main street, St. Cloud, Minnesota</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is the old main street, where old towns concentrated commercial activities. Notice something? Like nearly 100% lot coverage for the commercial buildings? This is not surprising considering that commercial uses have no use for front yards and back yards, and since they are not living spaces, they don't care about keeping the window-to-area ratio low, unlike residential uses where each room needs windows, more or less. So there was no point in wasting space by having courtyards or setbacks. This results in buildings that cover almost their entire lot. Since most of the buildings have 2 to 3 stories, it means a Floor-Area-Ratio of 150 to 250 %! Not too shabby. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even if only the ground floor is commercial and the upper floors are residential, leading to an L-shaped building as the upper, residential, floors have setbacks due to the need for windows...</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R1c3aahwnvk/VkGLGz2GKhI/AAAAAAAAEeI/ozdcquwlyS4/s1600/PlateauB%25C3%25A2timentEnL2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="316" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R1c3aahwnvk/VkGLGz2GKhI/AAAAAAAAEeI/ozdcquwlyS4/s640/PlateauB%25C3%25A2timentEnL2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The ground floor has near 100% lot coverage, the upper floors, which are residential, have about 50% due to the need for windows in order to have bedrooms, leading to an L-shape building</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--1bTiEsaapQ/VkGLG6r2c9I/AAAAAAAAEeM/2pip0cf1rWk/s1600/PlateauB%25C3%25A2timentEnL.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="448" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--1bTiEsaapQ/VkGLG6r2c9I/AAAAAAAAEeM/2pip0cf1rWk/s640/PlateauB%25C3%25A2timentEnL.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>These buildings are another example, the upper floors are sitting on commercial pedestals that have near 100% lot coverage</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
...these buildings still have a commercial FAR of around 90-100%, with an additional 50-100% residential FAR.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what about the residential areas just a few blocks away? Were they also very dense? Not quite:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3sPV91XqSx4/VkGL43gNHBI/AAAAAAAAEeY/x8tvXQlg4pY/s1600/StCloudOldResidential%2B10000.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="402" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3sPV91XqSx4/VkGL43gNHBI/AAAAAAAAEeY/x8tvXQlg4pY/s640/StCloudOldResidential%2B10000.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Older residential area near St. Cloud's downtown area, mostly single-family houses with a density of about 10 000 people per square mile (4 000 per square kilometer), so about 40/hectare</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TNR0AazHk2o/VkGL5EBc1hI/AAAAAAAAEec/JAHz2L-qfaY/s1600/StCloudOldResidential%2B15000to20000.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="430" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TNR0AazHk2o/VkGL5EBc1hI/AAAAAAAAEec/JAHz2L-qfaY/s640/StCloudOldResidential%2B15000to20000.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Another example in the same city, but with a bit more low-rise apartments, resulting in a density of 15 000 to 20 000 people per square mile (6 0000 to 8 000 per square kilometer), about 60 to 80 per hectare</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These areas are made up of detached buildings with large setbacks, the FAR should be around 25 to 50%, but the average seems to be around 30%.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So old American cities had very high commercial densities on main street but relatively low densities in residential areas. And we know these small towns were walkable because they were built in an era where cars were still relatively rare, if not outright in an era where they didn't exist.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Big boxes, mom-'n-pop stores: the logic of commercial uses </h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-place-for-buses-in-properly.html">once referred in the past</a> to the self-evident fact that the number of stores that a city could support was dependent on the population and the wealth level, after all, one could hardly imagine 3 huge supermarkets in a village of 100. I mentioned particularly supermarkets, that needed from my estimates 8 000 to 12 000 people to be financially viable. In fact, I checked and there are 37 000 supermarkets in the US, for 315 million people, so around 1 supermarket per 8 500 people. The same is true for other types of stores, with varying "critical mass" of potential customers to be viable: for instance, there are about 2 000 people per convenience store in the US (1 400 in Québec), on the other hand, there is about one Wal-Mart supercenter per 100 000 people. Some stores probably overlap and compete for certain things, for example, a small neighborhood grocery theoretically fulfills the same role as a big supermarket, but can thrive on a smaller consumer base, at the cost of less choice and higher prices for their goods.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So if I can extrapolate from this seemingly self-evident fact that there can be too many stores for a given population, I can make a certain claim: <b>the amount of commercial space in a city is limited by the population that can access it and its wealth level</b>. Basically, there is probably a ratio of how many square feet of commercial area a given population can support. I don't know what that ratio is exactly, I found no study on the matter publicly available online, but the ratio probably fluctuates with certain cultural attitudes and wealth level.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another thing is that the catchment area of a store depends on the mode of transport. For example, a Wal-Mart cannot survive on walking if there are only 2 000 people within a 10-minute walk of it, it will need to reach out to a bigger consumer base by either being located near a very high-capacity and high-speed transit line (rare in North America, common in Japan) or by offering parking and being located near high-speed roads so as to allow consumers to reach it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What that means is that in the era in which small American towns were built, as travel speeds were quite low, commercial needs of the population had to be satisfied locally. Going to the next town over could take a few hours. That meant that the bigger the city, the more well-furbished and specialized stores could be found and accessible, while small towns had to deal with a dearth of commercial use, maybe just a general store where many things had to be ordered in advance. The usefulness of the Sears catalog is self-evident in such a context: allowing small towns to shop the products of a big department store that only large cities could otherwise support. Nowadays, with cars being so widespread, residents are no longer restricted only to their town's commercial offering but can access the entire region's offerings, putting old small stores at the center of urban areas in competition with big box stores located near high-speed roads.</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
A modelized thought experiment</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK, so I'm going to do a simplified model to explore the issue, inspired a bit by <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-density-of-density-should-density.html">my exercise comparing uniform versus concentrated density</a>. I'm going to suppose:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1- Uniform residential and commercial density</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2- All commercial uses are at the center of the town (or neighborhood)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3- The ratio of commercial to residential floor space is 1 to 10, so for each 10 square meters of residential floor area, there is 1 square meter of commercial floor area (this is not based on any calculation of mine, just a random number)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4- Distance is measured as the bird flies rather than Manhattan distance, because it simplifies things.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The idea of all commercial uses being in one spot is a simplification, in reality, a few proximity stores will be distributed around the city, but I keep that assumption because commercial uses do tend to concentrate in one spot, especially specialized stores, and I want to look at people's ability to walk to all commercial uses, not just to the nearest one. I will look at 4 scenarios to see how residential and commercial density play a role:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sFsFYSloW74/VkbF-LYf_nI/AAAAAAAAEfA/uJsncdLSYjM/s1600/Scenarios1-2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sFsFYSloW74/VkbF-LYf_nI/AAAAAAAAEfA/uJsncdLSYjM/s1600/Scenarios1-2.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Scenario 1 is a traditional North American town with a dense downtown and a relatively small population (10 000) Scenario 2 is a 20 000-people city with a typical sprawl-type commercial area in the center (low density commercial)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NIUMItHlORo/VkbF-fxSsWI/AAAAAAAAEfE/y2S4WsUgaHc/s1600/Scenarios3-4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NIUMItHlORo/VkbF-fxSsWI/AAAAAAAAEfE/y2S4WsUgaHc/s1600/Scenarios3-4.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Scenario 3 is the opposite of scenario 2: the commercial center is still dense, but residential density is reduced by 33%. Scenario 4 is what is often seen, with low-density commercial areas largely located on the periphery</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Scenario 1 is just a reference, it is a traditional small North American town, with relatively low residential density (30% FAR) but commercial uses concentrated in a small area downtown at decent density (100% FAR).<br />
<br />
Scenario 2 is a scenario where the small town has grown to 20 000 people, allowing for a more diversified commercial choice. However, there are two main differences:<br />
1- Segregated uses: there is no residential upper stories in the commercial downtown<br />
2- Low-density commercial developments that reflect typical strip mall commercial developments with commercial areas surrounded by huge parking lots</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HL4w8gO0IU8/VkgrZI4D7RI/AAAAAAAAEfU/ObhgT4IphPA/s1600/Burlington%2Bmall.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="342" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HL4w8gO0IU8/VkgrZI4D7RI/AAAAAAAAEfU/ObhgT4IphPA/s640/Burlington%2Bmall.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A South Burlington, VT mall (thanks to Bill Morris in the comments for pointing out it's not actually in Burlington)...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C_zq-Bm-bAs/VkgrlNTaxII/AAAAAAAAEfc/HpO6pbWP4ic/s1600/Burlington%2Bmall%2BFAR.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="340" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C_zq-Bm-bAs/VkgrlNTaxII/AAAAAAAAEfc/HpO6pbWP4ic/s640/Burlington%2Bmall%2BFAR.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>...which has 8 600 square meters of floor area on a lot of 41 000 square meters, for a FAR of roughly 20%</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iUzEW9hcKLg/VkgsZvgxcMI/AAAAAAAAEfk/owsNsIQqrPI/s1600/LevittownNY.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="408" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iUzEW9hcKLg/VkgsZvgxcMI/AAAAAAAAEfk/owsNsIQqrPI/s640/LevittownNY.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Levittown, NY is a good example of that design, however the commercial area is not radial but linear</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Scenario 3 is an hypothetical scenario where the commercial density is still 100%, so a traditional main street area, surrounded by lower-density residential areas with a FAR of 20%, the equivalent of single-family houses on lots of 800 square meters or so (1/5th of an acre). This means a much smaller commercial area, but a much larger residential area as residential density is lowered by 33%. I've also kept uses separated here, so no one lives in the commercial downtown.<br />
<br />
Comparing Scenario 2 to Scenario 3 should demonstrate the relative importance of commercial vs residential density.<br />
<br />
Finally, Scenario 4 is a much too frequent example of a small town which traditional downtown has been converted to strip malls (20% FAR commercial), but it has not been allowed to increase in size, so the downtown only has one fifth of the commercial uses it could hold before. The rest of the commercial buildings have instead been built at the periphery, near a theoretical highway, because that was the only place available for it. So we have a commercial area at the periphery, with a small commercial node at the center of the town.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h3>
Analysis</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h4>
<i>Distance to center of commercial area</i></h4>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the first approach, I will simply look at the distribution of the population depending on the distance to the middle of the commercial area, as I did earlier.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cGU1TjdYDbE/VklsLtlxwhI/AAAAAAAAEgg/Z-aOh42M938/s1600/Distance%2Bto%2Bcenter%2BGraph.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="568" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cGU1TjdYDbE/VklsLtlxwhI/AAAAAAAAEgg/Z-aOh42M938/s640/Distance%2Bto%2Bcenter%2BGraph.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
Now here are some specific data points, namely an estimate of a probability of walking to the center of the area (based on a personal estimate of probability of walking relative to distance), a share of population living within 600 meters (10 minutes walking distance) of that center and the median distance.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gYBXLgWoPfw/VklvPyH1VaI/AAAAAAAAEgs/TwgPuARvWUM/s1600/DistToCenter-Table.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gYBXLgWoPfw/VklvPyH1VaI/AAAAAAAAEgs/TwgPuARvWUM/s640/DistToCenter-Table.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
So the old American town is a very walkable town, with most people living within 10 minutes of the downtown area, but with only 10 000 people, the commercial area will not offer a lot of variety and choice. This is a town of small stores with relatively high prices and poor product selection.<br />
<br />
Scenario 4 shows how the habit of building low-density commercial areas on the periphery by lack of space zoned commercial in the city is disastrous. There's very, very few people who live within walking distance of the commercial zone's center.<br />
<br />
Scenarios 2 and 3 are the most interesting results. Here, we can see that though scenario 3 has a lower residential density and the median distance to the center is higher than Scenario 2, it still remains that significantly more people are within walking distance of the commercial zone. This makes sense as a more compact commercial zone allows the residential zone to begin much closer to the center. It's important to remember that <b>walkability is a very, very local matter</b>.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Distance to farthest commercial use</h4>
This is a variant of the first analysis. Instead of looking at the distance to an arbitrary center of the commercial zone, I look at the distance to the farthest commercial use, basically the opposite side of the commercial zone. This is an interesting data because it shows how much any one person can walk to the ENTIRETY of the commercial offerings rather than to a "center" where there might be nothing at all.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p7lzArM2K7A/VklwgDGiQsI/AAAAAAAAEg4/TMls3Vy9tXc/s1600/CenterCommercialZone.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="448" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p7lzArM2K7A/VklwgDGiQsI/AAAAAAAAEg4/TMls3Vy9tXc/s640/CenterCommercialZone.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The center (red dot) of this commercial zone is not actually close to any commercial building except a small fast-food restaurant, every commercial building is 1,5 to 2 minutes away on foot.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So here are the results with an analysis focused on the furthest commercial use:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-veJ70e1NlQ0/Vklw4hR-iiI/AAAAAAAAEhA/0uvZ-6qPWZQ/s1600/Distance%2Bto%2BFCU%2BGraph.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="560" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-veJ70e1NlQ0/Vklw4hR-iiI/AAAAAAAAEhA/0uvZ-6qPWZQ/s640/Distance%2Bto%2BFCU%2BGraph.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9x6MqQ5OYE0/VklxGHEYB1I/AAAAAAAAEhI/gaELvYScjCk/s1600/DistToFCU-Table.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9x6MqQ5OYE0/VklxGHEYB1I/AAAAAAAAEhI/gaELvYScjCk/s640/DistToFCU-Table.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The traditional small town is still exemplary, but the small advantage of the scenario with a compact commercial zone but lower residential density (scenario 3) over that of the scenario with traditional residential density but a low density commercial zone (scenario 2) has become much more significant. Nearly 10% of the population in scenario 3 lives within very walkable distance from all commercial uses, but 0% do in scenario 2 (normal, as the commercial zone itself has a diameter of over 600 meters).<br />
<br />
<i>Note also that in reality, the patterns today are often
more linear than radial, which makes things even worse for walkability.
Also, that people may demand access to certain commercial uses that a 20
000-people city or neighborhood cannot support on its own (major mall,
Wal-Marts or the like), which increases the need for proper transit so
these uses can still be accessed without cars.</i><br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
At least in the case of our recent development patterns, it would seem that achieving commercial density is far more important to re-establishing walkable cities than densifying residential areas. Concentrating commercial uses and economic activities creates an area where residents can access most economic activities on foot. Even if there are few people residing there currently, this is still an opportunity for redevelopment to bring people there, a way to urbanise a city or a neighborhood without even needing to affect any residential area beyond the walkable distance of the commercial core.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RkHkvJmG9QQ/VkmB1HlHfRI/AAAAAAAAEhY/C5e_aWcdCTU/s1600/Rosslyn-Ballston.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="454" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RkHkvJmG9QQ/VkmB1HlHfRI/AAAAAAAAEhY/C5e_aWcdCTU/s640/Rosslyn-Ballston.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in Arlington, VA is a rare successful example of a suburb that has been successfully urbanised in North America, yet all the urbanisation has been concentrated in a corridor about 500 meters wide, beyond that, areas remain suburban</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A city is first and foremost about economic activities, not houses. And so, the density of economic activities is crucial, perhaps even more crucial to walkable, transit-friendly urbanism than dense residential areas. Building dense residential areas in a city where economic activities are spread apart may make the city more financially sustainable by providing a greater tax base for a given infrastructure, but it will not reduce car-dependency much, if at all.<br />
<br />
Currently, commercial areas tend to be both extremely low-density and far from residential areas...<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3Nz19ncTf8k/VkmErvIR8QI/AAAAAAAAEhk/mzsoDoIPhkE/s1600/LevittownNYsuperposition.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3Nz19ncTf8k/VkmErvIR8QI/AAAAAAAAEhk/mzsoDoIPhkE/s1600/LevittownNYsuperposition.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Above, a map of residential density of Levittown, NY, below, the WalkScore map of the same area, note how the highly walkable areas have no people in them, almost like a mirror image, due to use separation</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
...both of these need to be reversed. Discussions about the proper form of residential areas, though fascinating and very relevant, will stay quite secondary if we cannot get commercial area in an urban form. Indeed, while playing around with the inputs on my Excel models of the "commercial on periphery" model, even if I increase the average residential density to 200% FAR (which is the equivalent of a typical Euro-bloc with 3 or 4 stories), the area remains unwalkable with only 10% living within 10-minutes walking distance from the center of the commercial area, and no one living within walking distance of all commercial uses.<br />
<br />
With a dense commercial core which is eminently walkable by itself, transit can become quite efficient as people living too far from it to walk only need to go there by transit once, when they get down from the stop or station, they have access to everything, needing transit only to go back home once they have finished their activities for the day.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-68361663158581976172015-11-05T00:35:00.001-05:002015-11-05T00:35:21.637-05:00Porches, front yards and the (North) American way of life<div style="text-align: justify;">
So last weekend was my favorite holiday: Halloween. The well-known celebration of Halloween originated in the United States, a combination of many different influences, and it has migrated to Québec by the time I was born. As a kid, I loved going trick-or-treating, walking the streets, looking at houses with fake graveyards in front of them and the like. It got me thinking about the intersection between the celebration of Halloween and the built environment of North America.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Traditional North American residential practices</h3>
If there is one thing that defines North American architecture, especially in single-family areas, it is an openness of design. Traditional urban houses in much of North America is open to the street, with plenty of wide windows, porches and details to make the house look good to the street. Front yards have also been common for a century or more, and these are rarely fenced-in, and even when they are, they remain largely visible from the street or sidewalk. These front yards used to be of moderate depth before cars came around, but they have gotten deeper as time has gone on.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hRXhRx29cPU/VjhNsbhQmJI/AAAAAAAAEZg/x-kD3-O7J0E/s1600/AlbanyDuplexes2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="390" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hRXhRx29cPU/VjhNsbhQmJI/AAAAAAAAEZg/x-kD3-O7J0E/s640/AlbanyDuplexes2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Traditional American duplexes in Albany, New York: Note the two large porches, one for each unit</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vt7l7ApD9GI/VjhNsW3-1BI/AAAAAAAAEZc/fS0YNdXPjEA/s1600/DetroitHouses.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="462" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vt7l7ApD9GI/VjhNsW3-1BI/AAAAAAAAEZc/fS0YNdXPjEA/s640/DetroitHouses.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Early 20th century houses (maybe duplexes) in Detroit</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DzKD-dRlSbM/VjhNt2N1NvI/AAAAAAAAEZ8/2tDe6c-TwcM/s1600/TradAmericanHouse.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="430" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DzKD-dRlSbM/VjhNt2N1NvI/AAAAAAAAEZ8/2tDe6c-TwcM/s640/TradAmericanHouse.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Another example of traditional American architecture, note the porch, the big windows in front, the attention to detail</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lKoZyLVkTNU/VjhNs0OUnLI/AAAAAAAAEZs/Gk-tvX1n5SE/s1600/Sears4plex.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="298" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lKoZyLVkTNU/VjhNs0OUnLI/AAAAAAAAEZs/Gk-tvX1n5SE/s640/Sears4plex.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>4-plex kit sold by Sears in the early 20th century, once again, note that each apartment has a porch or a balcony (<a href="http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/1921-1926.htm">source</a>)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BDer5648sHQ/VjhNtEUJS7I/AAAAAAAAEZ4/B1bttXOQWHI/s1600/SearsDuplex.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="492" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BDer5648sHQ/VjhNtEUJS7I/AAAAAAAAEZ4/B1bttXOQWHI/s640/SearsDuplex.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Sears home duplex</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cs9REJOpafg/VjhNtE8-m6I/AAAAAAAAEZw/KlPPXwoyclc/s1600/SearsHome2.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="470" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cs9REJOpafg/VjhNtE8-m6I/AAAAAAAAEZw/KlPPXwoyclc/s640/SearsHome2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Sears single-family home, made to fit a 32-ft wide lot</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uUSQ0cbUWB8/VjhNsazsnII/AAAAAAAAEZk/EXe72sk1Z9M/s1600/DuplexeTremblant.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="406" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uUSQ0cbUWB8/VjhNsazsnII/AAAAAAAAEZk/EXe72sk1Z9M/s640/DuplexeTremblant.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This is a duplex from Mont-Tremblant in Québec, like the American examples, it has big porches, but also the traditional exterior staircase common to Québec traditional housing design (which makes the ground floor porch exclusive to the ground floor unit)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pqg_0VCJWcA/VjhNste-XiI/AAAAAAAAEZo/c9usK_WFNUI/s1600/Saint-J%25C3%25A9r%25C3%25B4me.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="366" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pqg_0VCJWcA/VjhNste-XiI/AAAAAAAAEZo/c9usK_WFNUI/s640/Saint-J%25C3%25A9r%25C3%25B4me.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Traditional homes and duplexes in Saint-Jérôme, Québec</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eqAJu33mLsA/VjhNtyXsbII/AAAAAAAAEaA/Bt3rdZEYK8I/s1600/Tremblant.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="448" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eqAJu33mLsA/VjhNtyXsbII/AAAAAAAAEaA/Bt3rdZEYK8I/s640/Tremblant.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Other examples of single-family homes and duplexes in Mont-Tremblant, Québec</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gfWVx0_modg/VjhPRp3z_OI/AAAAAAAAEao/B1A1Z54ZzLk/s1600/BouchervilleDuplexe.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="388" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gfWVx0_modg/VjhPRp3z_OI/AAAAAAAAEao/B1A1Z54ZzLk/s640/BouchervilleDuplexe.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Duplex in Boucherville</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J05_TRhmwsE/VjhPvSZGadI/AAAAAAAAEaw/L9PRK4_MfpM/s1600/VieuxBoucherville.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J05_TRhmwsE/VjhPvSZGadI/AAAAAAAAEaw/L9PRK4_MfpM/s640/VieuxBoucherville.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A few houses in the old section of Boucherville</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<h3>
Traditional European practices</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This openness of design can be contrasted with many European countries who have buildings with plain façades built right on the property line (note: the apparent density may be deceptive, in many cases, houses have huge back yards so that overall density may be only 20-40% higher than traditional single-family areas in North America)...<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OM_dme4irq8/VjmV-GyFppI/AAAAAAAAEbM/v2lw0jzmU9w/s1600/FR-CastleUnderSiege.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OM_dme4irq8/VjmV-GyFppI/AAAAAAAAEbM/v2lw0jzmU9w/s640/FR-CastleUnderSiege.JPG" width="624" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>I call this architectural style, common in France, "Castle under siege"</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E6Rlby8nd5E/VjmV-MnsP9I/AAAAAAAAEbU/pBBg_UzZ20Q/s1600/FRChateauxroux2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="334" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E6Rlby8nd5E/VjmV-MnsP9I/AAAAAAAAEbU/pBBg_UzZ20Q/s640/FRChateauxroux2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Example in France with small, fenced in, yards in front</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rry8Vo6S5ng/VjmV-EXP_7I/AAAAAAAAEbQ/MMdBu2ZNHLc/s1600/FRChateauxroux.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="438" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rry8Vo6S5ng/VjmV-EXP_7I/AAAAAAAAEbQ/MMdBu2ZNHLc/s640/FRChateauxroux.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Another example in France</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6LiLud6xRGQ/VjmV-TDd0pI/AAAAAAAAEbY/TPTcYnMaSW0/s1600/Spain.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="334" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6LiLud6xRGQ/VjmV-TDd0pI/AAAAAAAAEbY/TPTcYnMaSW0/s640/Spain.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Here is an example in Spain</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9fqhojaOkN4/VjmWwz4wd2I/AAAAAAAAEbs/AoLie9z2yIs/s1600/ManchesterUK.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="396" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9fqhojaOkN4/VjmWwz4wd2I/AAAAAAAAEbs/AoLie9z2yIs/s640/ManchesterUK.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>An example in Manchester, UK</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
...or even if they have significant front yards, they often use fences to hide the front yard from the street.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AjsNJPNd3Gw/VjmXmbIgJ9I/AAAAAAAAEb0/wCKDVcJEi80/s1600/Danemark.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="346" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AjsNJPNd3Gw/VjmXmbIgJ9I/AAAAAAAAEb0/wCKDVcJEi80/s640/Danemark.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A case of hedges used as fences, though these houses evoke ranch-style or bungalow-style houses common in North America, they are visually isolated by hedges and they do not even face the street</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eAhzIqyoIKI/VjmXmSqFEtI/AAAAAAAAEb8/kChkdV3_FsM/s1600/FRIssoudun.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eAhzIqyoIKI/VjmXmSqFEtI/AAAAAAAAEb8/kChkdV3_FsM/s640/FRIssoudun.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GQYwYCQNU7A/VjmXmcjXZ5I/AAAAAAAAEb4/HHK2IREsXxM/s1600/FRNanterre.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GQYwYCQNU7A/VjmXmcjXZ5I/AAAAAAAAEb4/HHK2IREsXxM/s640/FRNanterre.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Two examples in France of single-family areas with small or medium front yards, largely hidden from the public by fences of some type</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yL10vyyZQf0/VjmXmoHrONI/AAAAAAAAEcA/STBIQ4KHywI/s1600/Spain3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="302" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yL10vyyZQf0/VjmXmoHrONI/AAAAAAAAEcA/STBIQ4KHywI/s640/Spain3.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>An example in Spain, with outright walls blocking the view on the big houses on big lots on either side of the street</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
(Note that some countries in Europe have more of an intermediate position like the Netherlands or England and that newer suburban areas often have front yards, even if they're usually fenced-off, or walled-off)<br />
<h3>
Public vs private realm</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Where am I going with this? Well, first, I think it's important to talk about the public realm and the private realm. The public realm is any part of a city that is publicly accessible: street, sidewalk, park, plaza. The public realm also includes the visual elements visible from publicly accessible places. On the other hand, the private realm is everything that is not open to the public: people's homes and back yards are the typical example of it, as are offices and workplaces not open to the public.<br />
<br />
If you look at the images contrasting the North American and European cities, you can notice one major difference: in the European cases, there is a very clear break between public and private realm, the public realm is the street and sidewalk, owned and administrated by the city, and just outside it, walls, either the façade of the buildings or walls built at the limit of the property to make the front yard more part of the private realm than of the public realm.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="336" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ae02-nTYy4s/VjrDAvdkbXI/AAAAAAAAEck/7h1DwSR260g/s640/EuropePublicRealm.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="640" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In much of Europe, the public realm is often mostly limited to the street and sidewalk, with walls clearly marking a break between the publicly-owned public realm and the private realm</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i></i></div>
In North America, the openness of housing design and the presence of unfenced/clearly visible front yards introduces an entirely other part of the public realm: privately owned land that is nevertheless designed to complement the public realm, to serve as a public display of the owner's personality. This means that shaping the public realm is not just the duty of the public authority through the city, but also of the community, of the individual residents who take care of their front yards, porches and other publicly visible elements of their dwelling.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MlBYhYs0x0Q/VjrEEL8WA9I/AAAAAAAAEcs/73FzFn8F9Ro/s1600/NAPublicPrivate.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="314" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MlBYhYs0x0Q/VjrEEL8WA9I/AAAAAAAAEcs/73FzFn8F9Ro/s640/NAPublicPrivate.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>North American areas add an intermediate buffer between the public realm and the private realm, that can be called a communal realm, made up of privately-owned land and house front that is nevertheless put to public display</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This specific communal space in the public realm in North American societies can have a strong impact on community life and on the manifestations of cultural events. Indeed, without that space allowing a public showcase of each household, it is hard to imagine Halloween and Christmas proceeding as they do currently, with decorations that reshape the public realm temporarily for the duration of these holidays, all without involving the city.<br />
<br />
People in urbanist circles sometimes look down upon front yards as meaningless space wasters, reducing density while not providing a larger private area like a back yard. But I think that this front setback does serve a purpose, even more than merely providing a buffer to protect residents' privacy, and that it defines a certain North American way of life to which many people are emotionally attached. I'm not saying this particular way of life is really superior, it has its good points (fostering a certain community spirit and involving people into contributing to shape the public realm) but also its drawbacks (inciting people to consider other resident's front yards as being semi-public, legitimating by-laws to control what one may or may not do with it or inciting them to build social pressure to conform to certain standards).<br />
<br />
But if we want to get people to accept a drive for more walkable, urban areas, I think we have to account for this preference and try to conceive of ways to reconcile higher densities with this approach to communal construction of the public realm through front yards and setbacks. That is not necessarily impossible to achieve, traditional American cities, even today, frequently have residential densities of 50 to 100 people per hectare (20 to 40 per acre) with single-family homes and duplexes, and Montréal has some neighborhoods where residential blocks have densities of 150 to 200 people per hectare (60 to 80 per acre) while still having small front yards and balconies for units above ground.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3jQnL_kS0bQ/VjrcnLPKIdI/AAAAAAAAEdA/29SnKOfMmQI/s1600/Qu%25C3%25A9becExtSC2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="402" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3jQnL_kS0bQ/VjrcnLPKIdI/AAAAAAAAEdA/29SnKOfMmQI/s640/Qu%25C3%25A9becExtSC2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>By providing a private space on display with a private entry point, the exterior staircases and balconies of traditional Québec multiplexes allows residents to participate in North American celebrations like Halloween, as the resident of the upper unit of this duplex demonstrates (though at the time these were built, Halloween was not celebrated in Québec)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tmfQnrMivCI/VjrcnF3mDcI/AAAAAAAAEdE/LDl227FW6ko/s1600/Qu%25C3%25A9becExtSC.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="418" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tmfQnrMivCI/VjrcnF3mDcI/AAAAAAAAEdE/LDl227FW6ko/s640/Qu%25C3%25A9becExtSC.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Another example of an upper unit resident decorating for Halloween and allowing kids to trick-or-treat there</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-38lavgPhVKs/VjrgJhTMXGI/AAAAAAAAEdU/YbyMrp0Oc6U/s1600/Verdun.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-38lavgPhVKs/VjrgJhTMXGI/AAAAAAAAEdU/YbyMrp0Oc6U/s640/Verdun.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>On this commercial street in Verdun, commercial buildings have no setbacks, but residential buildings have small setbacks, plus the famous exterior stairs and balconies</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fnXvoDxF8Do/Vjrhm48_w1I/AAAAAAAAEdg/98fo5a-BoGE/s1600/ReadinPA1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="394" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fnXvoDxF8Do/Vjrhm48_w1I/AAAAAAAAEdg/98fo5a-BoGE/s640/ReadinPA1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-566A9onxOx0/Vjrh9cp25LI/AAAAAAAAEdo/_O8NtZ3-f1Y/s1600/ReadingPA2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="436" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-566A9onxOx0/Vjrh9cp25LI/AAAAAAAAEdo/_O8NtZ3-f1Y/s640/ReadingPA2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In Reading, Pennsylvania, private porches on townhouses provide a small public display area for residents, achieving a density of 150 people per hectare (60 per acre)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-80747483073987491592015-10-20T02:20:00.002-04:002015-11-30T11:34:40.001-05:00Metropolitan areas: the new cities<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some time ago, I decided to do some calculation on the proportion of people in certain countries that live in large metropolitan areas. To be frank, I did it mainly to check out the claim that North America cannot have urban areas like Europe because there is too much land and too few people, so of course population is more spread out. Using <a href="http://citypopulation.de/">citypopulation.de</a> (a great resource for urban populations and density) and public data on total population, I came up with the following results for the proportion of a country's population living in metropolitan areas with more than one million inhabitants:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eSmwokQ6jXo/VhyRf6V725I/AAAAAAAAEXM/j_7anm-2tM0/s1600/MetroPopShare.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="582" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eSmwokQ6jXo/VhyRf6V725I/AAAAAAAAEXM/j_7anm-2tM0/s640/MetroPopShare.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In red, Asian countries, in light blue, European countries, in orange, European offshoots</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not surprisingly, island nations with a lot of mountains or deserts tend to have higher population concentration inside a few metros than other nations. However, a clear trend is how the population in European offshoots (former colonies) is much more concentrated in big metro areas than the population in Europe. Europe is a continent of mid-sized cities, North America is a continent of huge metros with almost uninhabited areas between them. So, all in all, North America ostensibly has more potential for big metropolises than Europe.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
But what is a metropolitan area?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One objection to these numbers was that the definition of metropolitan area varies from country to country. Metropolitan areas in the US and Canada are extraordinarily large, whereas they are far more compact in Europe. For example, Greater Paris represents an area of 824 square kilometers, the Atlanta Metro area totals 21 694 square kilometer, 26 times bigger, though Paris has about 25% more people.<br />
<br />
However, I believe that this difference is not due to a fundamental difference in what defines a metropolitan area, but due to the different urban organization and transport infrastructure.<br />
<br />
But what defines a metropolitan area? I think that to properly understand what is a metropolitan area, one must first understand what is a city, because they are in many ways functionally similar.<br />
<br />
What force binds a city together and defines it? Community? In cities, there are many different communities, each forming separate neighborhoods, so though community is a bound present in cities, it doesn't define them. Culture? As I live in Montréal, where Western Montréal is anglophone and Eastern Montréal is francophone, and the difference is flagrant, that seems self-evidently wrong too. Shared identity? Though present in many cities, identity is more likely a consequence of the city's existence, and not its originator.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, I believe a city is bound together mainly by economics, that, in fact, economics are the very reason that cities exist in the first place. A city is mainly defined by economic activities, workplaces, businesses, services that draw in people looking to benefit from the opportunities that exist in cities and from the diverse and rich products and services that result from all this economic activity. So everyone living in a city wants to be in a location to be able to access these activities. This largely means that a city is defined by commuting distance. As a whole, cities represent an area where economic activities occur within commuting distances from each other, forming a local economy.<br />
<br />
So if a city is defined by economics, so should a metropolitan area, but what is the difference? In fact, the difference is next to non-existent. Like cities, metropolitan areas are also bound by commuting distance and by the proximity and concentration of economic activities that form a local economy. However, cities are also political entities, and these entities were usually formed in a previous era, before cars, before buses, before streetcars and before trains (except for some recent cities). A city born in a pre-motorization era could only encompass an area defined by a walking commute, which is limited by a walking speed of roughly 5 km/h.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gDJlYAaFXBA/ViRTRi34rZI/AAAAAAAAEXk/3hzWF9lwtWs/s1600/ParisIntramuros.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="458" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gDJlYAaFXBA/ViRTRi34rZI/AAAAAAAAEXk/3hzWF9lwtWs/s640/ParisIntramuros.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Paris intramuros (between the walls) forms roughly a circle with a 5-km radius around its center, equivalent to a 1-hour walking distance.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Many cities are still politically bound to these borders from another era, as in the case of Paris, though some others have known mergers which have brought larger areas under control of one authority.<br />
<br />
With the invention of new, faster means of transport, commuting distance has been extended, bringing more economic activities under the same local economy and allowing cities to expand. However, the political boundaries have not followed in most cases, leading to economically integrated areas with fragmented political leadership, sometimes with a disjointed urbanized area with gaps between urban centers.<br />
<br />
So, in a way, metropolitan areas ARE the cities, but often split in several entities connected to each other through high-speed transport links.<br />
<br />
But how can this explain why Greater Paris is just 824 square kilometers and Atlanta's metropolitan area is 21 694 square kilometers, supposing both metros are defined the same way?<br />
<br />
The reason, I believe, is that the European development pattern is different from the North American one. European countries have largely avoided building freeways through cities and have struggled to keep economic activity centers (offices, shops, services) at the center of cities. Meanwhile, North America has often done significant "urban renewal", pushing highways through cities and allowing, even encouraging, economic activities to migrate to highway interchanges, which is the pattern Atlanta has adopted.<br />
<br />
As a result, to reach activity centers in European cities, people often have to go through urban areas, which slows down significantly intercity car trips, increasing commute times and thus limiting how far the region can integrate economically.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ukrPByQLSWE/ViR2rAmvwkI/AAAAAAAAEX0/U5887VLtJOU/s1600/EuropeanPattern.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="512" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ukrPByQLSWE/ViR2rAmvwkI/AAAAAAAAEX0/U5887VLtJOU/s640/EuropeanPattern.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The European pattern of highways going around cities with vibrant activity centers inside cities, which limits economic integration of the major city as crossing urban areas to each commercial centers consume a lot of time</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pF1VI8Zh4XY/ViR3ULVdeBI/AAAAAAAAEX8/5wUt8ix5PNI/s1600/AmericanPattern.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="572" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pF1VI8Zh4XY/ViR3ULVdeBI/AAAAAAAAEX8/5wUt8ix5PNI/s640/AmericanPattern.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>With activity centers placed at interchanges, it allows for them to connect much faster through the high-speed network, increasing commuting speed and integrating a large region</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Over time, as metro population grows, attracting more people and activities by the amount of opportunities offered, the population will distribute itself into that area, defined by commuting speeds. As the area is more limited in the European pattern, the population will concentrate in a smaller area, and cities left outside those borders will either stagnate or join mid-sized regional cities, creating a pattern of relatively compact mid-sized cities separated by wide undeveloped areas:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pq5ueQU6Nzk/ViR6oDrx3oI/AAAAAAAAEYI/9Qt7gcmU-qs/s1600/EuropeanPattern2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="468" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pq5ueQU6Nzk/ViR6oDrx3oI/AAAAAAAAEYI/9Qt7gcmU-qs/s640/EuropeanPattern2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Natural evolution of the European pattern</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Meanwhile, the North American pattern will encourage sprawl. People who want to join a metro area are able to live in a very wide area. This favors a wide dispersion of population, but still within the borders of the metropolitan area, which still draws in people looking for better economic opportunities.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9uFA_g8CMCs/ViR7KdSQ5II/AAAAAAAAEYQ/dPAANawg9Og/s1600/AmericanPattern2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="560" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9uFA_g8CMCs/ViR7KdSQ5II/AAAAAAAAEYQ/dPAANawg9Og/s640/AmericanPattern2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Natural evolution of the American pattern</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It is important to remember that both the person going to live in a dense, compact urban area near a major European city and the person relocating to a farther suburb, or exurb, of a major American metropolitan area are seeking the same thing: proximity to a strong and diverse local economy to benefit from the opportunities, products and services that it produces.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h3>
Is the future more or less urbanization?</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think this is a good point to start on a tangent on the phenomenon of urbanization. Every country that has seen a significant improvement in living conditions has seen a massive movement to cities. That is because economic activities gain efficiency by concentrating, and the concentration of resources provide more opportunities than their dispersion. Still, there are economic activities that cannot be relocated like agriculture, mining and natural resource exploitation. However, these activities, thanks to gains in productivity, require less and less people to actually do them.<br />
<br />
Mines that in the 19th century could sustain an entire town by employing most of the male population can now employ only a fraction of that population while producing as much ore, or more, than before. Farm sizes exploded thanks to new machinery that allowed one person to plant and harvest vastly more land than before, reducing the need for a high number of farmers. Most economic activities however can be relocated, and they gain from gathering in a few places where their presence can lead to the emergence of support industries and where they can benefit from local expertise. That created a bias for cities that has never reversed.<br />
<br />
Never reversed, really? Yes, really. As I said, metropolitan areas have become the new cities, and if I look at the population of the top 20 most populous metros in the US versus the US census population, here is what I get:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R7DV55YULR4/ViXa2byiYWI/AAAAAAAAEYk/wSaSg5WKU9g/s1600/PopUSvst20metros.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="428" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R7DV55YULR4/ViXa2byiYWI/AAAAAAAAEYk/wSaSg5WKU9g/s640/PopUSvst20metros.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Population (in thousands), US total versus top 20 metros</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
OK, this graph doesn't clearly demonstrate a trend of metropolitan growth versus national growth, so here is a graph showing population relative to 1910 (which is 100) to see cumulative proportional change in both national population and top 20 metro population:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QoCkswV9pzw/ViXbHnaLQfI/AAAAAAAAEYs/xm-NG-9_h8M/s1600/PopUSvst20metrosCHANGE.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="428" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QoCkswV9pzw/ViXbHnaLQfI/AAAAAAAAEYs/xm-NG-9_h8M/s640/PopUSvst20metrosCHANGE.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Population (1910=100), US total versus top 20 metros</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Here, the top 20 metro curve is much higher than the US total population curve. This shows that the top 20 metros have gained population at twice the rate of the country as a whole. If we want to look at the proportion of the US population residing in the top 20 metros, here is what we get:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-el7I1OiWJuc/ViXbmEq8iPI/AAAAAAAAEY0/WB7IPYTEc4o/s1600/ShareUSpopT20metros.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="448" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-el7I1OiWJuc/ViXbmEq8iPI/AAAAAAAAEY0/WB7IPYTEc4o/s640/ShareUSpopT20metros.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
This shows the share of population in the largest metro areas keeps increasing, for a hundred years, the increase has only slightly slowed down over time, but the trend is still clearly positive.<br />
<br />
So I guess QEDs are in order here. BTW, <a href="http://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/histmetropop.aspx">source for the top 20 metro population</a>.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for those who long for the traditional lifestyle, that traditional lifestyle is simply unable to provide the resources and wealth required to maintain a modern quality of life. Just like nations, one can do calculations of accounts of trade for cities, calculating their "current accounts balances". Cities that fail to export enough to pay for their imports of goods and services from outside their borders face constant community impoverishment that leads to their decline.<br />
<br />
So ultimately, cities that have not reached critical mass to have an economy that can have a current account surplus are, well, doomed as their people get progressively poorer until they have to move out. This includes many isolated villages, many of which in North America are Native Reserves. It is my conviction that much of the troubles that afflict reserves are due to their inability to create a local economy that can balance the books of the money entering and leaving the reserves. Official policy tries to help them maintain a traditional lifestyle, but that traditional lifestyle is unable to sustain modern quality of life, leading to massive subsidy requirements that often fail to fully compensate the gap. Reserves that exist inside metropolitan areas like Kahnawake and Wendake in Québec have much higher quality of life and far less of the social problems that afflict isolated reserves, which are artificially maintained in conditions that would often lead to the closing of villages in the same conditions.<br />
<br />
Some say that technology allowing telecommuting may allow for a "return to the land", I'm more than doubtful. Even if we discount the loss of knowledge transfer resulting from face-to-face communications, there are plenty of goods and services that can't be remotely accessed, and so metropolitan living will remain desirable.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
I know some may start thinking I'm rambling, but I think it's important to underline that the very basis for cities' existence is economics, it is local economies that bind cities together more than community, culture or identity. In the modern world, economical pressures keep pushing economic activities and people together, though transport has expanded the definition of "proximity", allowing cities to morph into metropolitan areas, which have become the real modern cities.<br />
<br />
The concentration of North American populations in metropolitan centers put the lie to the idea that cities are ill-adapted to the North American context. People who come live into a city's suburbs in its metropolitan area go there because they want to join the local metropolitan economy and benefit from its opportunities and wealth. Transport infrastructure will influence how the metros develop and how far they extend, but ultimately, the move to metros is an economic fact of modern life.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-42536105673498679202015-09-23T22:01:00.002-04:002020-01-10T12:11:35.077-05:00Tackling congestion as an economic, not engineering, problem<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my previous post, I mentioned that congestion should be tackled as an economic problem rather than an engineering problem. I think this deserved to have its own post to explain what I meant by that, because it's a very important issue to my mind.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The engineering approach</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The typical approach of seeing congestion or vehicle traffic as an engineer problem is supposing that vehicle flows are essentially static, a known input into the model. XXXX vehicles per hours come at the intersection by the south and then go through the intersection towards the north. This value is taken as a constant: no matter how congested the intersection, the same number of people will want to make this movement, at the same vehicle flow. So in that context, all that matters is making sure that the road can take that traffic flow in an acceptable manner.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9jJ-YUN3ldc/VfedErCThiI/AAAAAAAAETk/24jkqJn_WEg/s1600/EngineeringProcess.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9jJ-YUN3ldc/VfedErCThiI/AAAAAAAAETk/24jkqJn_WEg/s640/EngineeringProcess.JPG" width="528" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The engineering approach to intersection design: traffic flows are an input that once determined is never modified</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So that's an engineering approach, simply assume certain traffic flows and then design the road network to accommodate that "load".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The economic/behavioral approach</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The engineering approach is very simplistic because it essentially eliminates humans from the problem, to the point that human beings could simply be absent, the model cares only about vehicle trips. It doesn't ask if having so many trips is good or bad or if these could be reduced, it considers these to be natural constants that must simply be dealt with rather than a sum of individual decisions, decisions that can change if the context changes. The economic approach expands upon the engineering approach by looking at decisions that people make, trying to see why they make it and what alternatives they have.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the end, a decision to go somewhere can be modelized as an economic decision which has costs and benefits (or "utility" as microeconomists put it if I remember correctly). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Benefits or utility</b> of a trip is generally the desired objective of the trip. <i>The distance traveled is NOT a benefit,</i> there is usually no direct benefit from traveling a certain distance, except on joy rides or pleasure strolls. If you have a convenience store 2 km away and another 10 km away with the same goods at the same price, you will go to the nearest one all the time. Benefits can be of many kinds, for example, the benefit of commuting to work is the income one gets from doing the work. If someone earns 100$ per working day, this can be assumed to be the benefit of the trip to and from the workplace. If he goes to a store or a restaurant, it is the utility of the good or meal he expects to purchase. Etc...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Costs</b> include, of course, the actual monetary cost of the trip, especially marginal costs (costs that are directly incurred by the trip), like gas, parking fees, tolls, transit fare, etc... Fixed costs may or may not be considered, depending on the analysis made, for example, someone who has a car may consider only the marginal cost (gas, maintenance) for individual trips, but in deciding whether to buy a car or not for commuting to work, fixed costs may be considered fully. <i>Costs also include the time that the trip takes</i>, as the time is "spent". That is where speed becomes relevant, by potentially reducing travel time, and thus, the cost of the trip (reducing distance can achieve the same thing). On the other hand, congestion, by lowering speed, increases travel costs in terms of time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Also, the cost of a minute may vary depending on comfort or perceived safety. For example, biking 10 minutes on a cycle track may be less "costly" in people's minds than 10 minutes on a road with a lot of fast-moving traffic, or 10 minutes on a free-flowing highway may be less "expensive" than 10 minutes sitting in stop-and-go traffic.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So the decision process of an individual measures in some way the expected benefits from a trip, versus the cost of the trip. If the trip's expected costs are higher than the expected utility, then people will then generally not make it. But they also have different alternatives: cars, transit, biking, walking, etc... So people examine these alternatives and select the one they think is best.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Sa2UwnD4Wcw/VfjsB5pIkWI/AAAAAAAAET4/VE9NcBKh73g/s1600/GraphModes.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="64" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Sa2UwnD4Wcw/VfjsB5pIkWI/AAAAAAAAET4/VE9NcBKh73g/s640/GraphModes.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Example of mode comparison for one trip, all modes except walking makes the trip worth it, though using a car is most expensive, as it saves time, it has the highest benefit/cost ratio</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Now, of course people don't bother making these calculations to the cent, but they do some estimates in their minds on some level. Everyone is different, and if you summed up everyone's thresholds together, you would obtain something like a demand curve:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RdiQVr6Q2WA/Vfjzp_K45gI/AAAAAAAAEUI/nOi_S0If37g/s1600/TrafficDemandCurve.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="500" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RdiQVr6Q2WA/Vfjzp_K45gI/AAAAAAAAEUI/nOi_S0If37g/s640/TrafficDemandCurve.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Hypothetical example of traffic flow "demand curve" showing the traffic flow depending on the cost of making vehicle trips, as congestion increases, or as the cost of travel increases, some people may find other paths, delay trips or shift to other modes like transit, reducing vehicle trips.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
An economic approach to solving traffic/congestion issues would recognize and consider this reasoning. Even the delays provided by the simulation would have a feedback effect on traffic flows and require iterative simulations to achieve a plausible result. As the level of service gets worse, the cost of travel at that point in time increases, encouraging people making elective trips (recreative trips, non-urgent trips, etc...) to temporally displace their trips, or encouraging drivers to find new paths or choosing different modes of transport.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a traffic engineer who has seen many construction projects come and go, I have seen this process in real life. When a project gets under way, the first few days are the worst, but then people adapt to the new situation by trying new paths or changing their habits in a "trial and error" manner and things slowly get better until a balance is reached. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Considering an economic approach also opens the door to a lot more avenues to solve traffic issues than just increasing road capacity (increasing road supply), you can also implement policies to manage demand. Essentially, <b>the economic approach sees congestion as a matter of demand (number of vehicle trips) exceeding supply (road capacity), which can be compensated either by increasing supply (increasing road capacity) or increasing the price of using roads (through higher travel times and/or direct monetary costs) to decrease demand, rather than merely a matter of a static load applied to a fixed system</b>. </div>
<br />
<br />
Visually, the process becomes much more complicated with more feedback loops:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PngILeyZPlQ/Vfj2aaPm2sI/AAAAAAAAEUU/F6vc4iIbzic/s1600/EngineeringProcessRevised.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PngILeyZPlQ/Vfj2aaPm2sI/AAAAAAAAEUU/F6vc4iIbzic/s640/EngineeringProcessRevised.JPG" width="618" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Engineering process revised to include an economic approach to congestion</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of the reasons why engineers don't like this vision, apart from the added complexity, is the "CHOOSE" part, and the availability of non-engineering policy solutions. Engineers are professionals taught to avoid partiality and who prefer to be neutral experts rather than militants for implementing given social policies, so considering non-engineering solutions makes them feel very ill at ease as they feel it exceeds their job mandate. At the same time, politicians who don't have much vision may simply ask engineers to solve congestion issues, entrusting experts with solving their city's problems. This may create a situation where economic solutions are not considered as the experts asked to study the situation do not think they have been given the mandate to evaluate these policy solutions.<br />
</div>
<h2>
Some ideas of an economic approach to congestion</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK, so there are alternatives to engineering solutions to deal with traffic demand, but what are they exactly? On an economic basis, there are three kinds of reductions of vehicle trips that can be achieved.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><b>Spatial and temporal redistribution of trips</b>: in that case, certain trips are delayed or hastened, or go through alternative roads that are less congested. When the costs of congested paths during peak hours become relatively higher than alternatives, then people are less likely to opt for them. This is most effective for elective trips without a fixed schedule or when alternative paths exist, which is not always the case (ex: bridges).</li>
<li><b>Elimination of trips</b>: when costs of trips increase, the cost may become higher even than the expected individual benefit of the trip, in which case, the trip can be canceled. In this case, what brings about the change is not relative cost, but the absolute cost of the trip that gets too high for it. This may be a problem for the local economy, but it may also favor the replacement of regional trips by local trips, which may be good for local communities. Commutes are least sensitive to that possibility, because benefits tend to be very high, and during congested times, commutes tend to be the majority of trips, so the ability of this approach of reducing congestion during peak hours is small.</li>
<li><b>Favoring travel modes that are more space-efficient</b>: walking, biking and transit all use a lot less space than single-occupancy vehicle. For example, a simple bus line with 12 trips per hour (1 per 5 minutes) can increase passenger throughput by 70% (700 people per hour versus 1 000 people per hour for a regular street lane) while using only 1% of that lane's hourly vehicle capacity. In this case too, the effect comes from relative cost, not absolute cost.</li>
</ol>
<br />
I will provide a few examples of different practical ways of achieving this, ideally based on real-life examples. But first, I want to address something. The idea of regulating or influencing individual behavior through policies based on economics often leads to accusations of <i>social engineering</i>. I just want to respond that <b>neutrality in this case is essentially impossible</b>. Streets and roads, by their very design, are public goods except for a few exceptions, as such, funding for them is determined by the public authority responsible for them. Therefore, that public authority is forced to make a choice, and the choice it makes will necessarily affect users' behavior and consumption of that good.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The default in North America of having public entities take care of roads, widening them when needed and being funded through taxes is an approach that is just as much social engineering as an approach that would have drivers paying tolls and fees with no income from taxes. Allowing people to park for free on the street and mandating high numbers of off-street parking for every development is just as much social engineering as charging street parking 5$ an hour and limiting street parking.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So accusations of social engineering sound hollow. It is impossible for policy to be wholly impartial on that matter. The closest thing would be a complete market-based solution. Hint: that market-based solution would not look anything like current practices.<br />
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Letting congestion take care of it</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the solution that is most often applied, but rarely intentionally. Increasing vehicle capacity is often very expensive and politically contentious in urban areas due to expropriations, so when government budgets are tight or governments are weak, projects to increase road capacity to deal with predicted increases in population of a metro area may be put on ice.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reasoning of the approach is the following: higher traffic demand increases road saturation and congestion, congestion increases travel time for vehicles on the road, travel time is part of travel cost, so travel cost increases, discouraging trips and so reducing demand. This is the flip side of the "induced demand" theory.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, is this a good solution? Not really, at least, not on its own.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem is that roads do have a major economic role to play in the modern world, for freight and for rapid movement of public and private services. Congestion is much worse for these vehicles than for commuters, because they delay the provision of services and may slow certain economic activities. Congestion can also be disastrous for transit, the alternative mode that is best placed to replace SOV trips during congested commute periods as high demand periods result in higher frequencies (making transit best in peak hours and worse in off-peak periods, the opposite of private vehicles). The slower transit vehicles go, the more expensive they are to run, so if transit runs in mixed traffic, congestion can be disastrous for it. That is what killed the streetcars.<br />
<br />
Finally, in terms of development incentives, congestion can lead to sprawl as industries and other developments flee congested areas. Since congestion is rare outside of peak hours, commercial developments are much less affected by it, so having congested arterials do nothing to keep commercial areas in the heart of residential developments.<br />
<br />
So, to sum up, developing a greater tolerance for congestion is not bad, but relying exclusively on congestion to regulate traffic is a bad approach.<br />
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Congestion charge</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The congestion charge is a relatively recent new development that has been implemented in many cities like Stockholm, London and Milan. The basic idea is to put a price on congestion by charging drivers of vehicles entering a congested zone a certain price. This creates a financial incentive to avoid this congested area, that is most often limited to the center of the metropolitan area. </div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UvSADovYj_g/Vf9UlMbVjaI/AAAAAAAAEUo/HJ9-SfMCBPk/s1600/CongestionZone.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="396" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UvSADovYj_g/Vf9UlMbVjaI/AAAAAAAAEUo/HJ9-SfMCBPk/s640/CongestionZone.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Schematic example of a congestion charge system, every vehicle crossing the dotted red line gets charged a certain amount</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This system has been shown to work very well to lower congestion in central areas. It makes commuting by car much more expensive and thus helps make transit and other modes of travel far more attractive, relatively speaking. It also keeps these areas with good enough traffic flows to allow trucks and service vehicles to move easily inside the city and it provides a new revenue source to fund transit and other infrastructure projects.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What price to charge? It can be modulated to obtain the desired
congestion level. The higher the charge, the fewer vehicles there will
be. If we ignore political realities, we could sum up a gradual process that could be called the <b>EASY SOLUTION TO CONGESTION</b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j1LkmslVZCE/Vf9gOhYlRQI/AAAAAAAAEVM/50WQzQSGO_M/s1600/Easysolutiontocongestion.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j1LkmslVZCE/Vf9gOhYlRQI/AAAAAAAAEVM/50WQzQSGO_M/s640/Easysolutiontocongestion.PNG" width="334" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Easy Solution to Congestion... I'm only partly facetious, it's politically suicidal, but it would work</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, it has its issue. For one thing, it can be very hard and expensive to do, because creating such a zone in a heavily gridded city means there is likely to be dozens of streets through which vehicles can enter the zone, and if only the major arterials are controlled, you can push vehicles to use detours on residential streets to avoid paying the charge. If the city is on an island or separated by rivers and there are a few bridges only to connect to the suburbs, it can be much more easily done. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-w2DcY747v2M/Vf9ZOME0vII/AAAAAAAAEU0/HBIq1VALzx0/s1600/Montr%25C3%25A9alCongestionCharge.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="534" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-w2DcY747v2M/Vf9ZOME0vII/AAAAAAAAEU0/HBIq1VALzx0/s640/Montr%25C3%25A9alCongestionCharge.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A theoretical congestion charge zone for Montréal, relatively easy to do thanks to the location of the city on an island...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CdaqdCZa9co/Vf9ZbCiFF7I/AAAAAAAAEU8/7-7DRuBT88M/s1600/TorontoCongestionCharge.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="445" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CdaqdCZa9co/Vf9ZbCiFF7I/AAAAAAAAEU8/7-7DRuBT88M/s640/TorontoCongestionCharge.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>...but in Toronto, it would be extremely complicated to apply because there is no obvious boundary and any border would cut through a lot of streets, including small side streets</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If the city is at the center of the region's highway system, a congestion charge may also make it hard for people to move from one suburb to another, which would generate a lot of backlash.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, the biggest problem with the congestion charge is that, just like letting congestion do the job on its own, it concentrates its effects on the city itself while leaving suburbs unaffected, or less affected. As a result, if the city is not a big enough draw on developments already, it can instead hurt it, as industries and offices flee outside of the congestion charge zone to avoid employees and trucks paying the charge. So it can be a sprawl incentive as only people who live and/or work inside the city are affected by the charge. So, in effect, it reduces car use inside the city, but it may push developments outside the city.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Tolling high-speed roadways</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is an approach I've often spoken in favor of and which can be seen as an user-payer approach, as high-speed roadways are very expensive to build, and the current way of funding them through licensing fees and gas taxes subsidizes suburban sprawl by making cities pay more than their fair share of high-speed roadways. Tolling highways have the secondary effect of making long travel trips much more expensive, which is the reverse of a gas-tax funded highway which both saves users time (being faster) and money (as they use less gas per distance traveled), a practice that enables people to live much farther than they would otherwise. With tolls, this imbalance can be somewhat corrected, and with tolls being an upfront, marginal cost, the impact is much greater than a yearly fee or tax.<br />
<br />
For example, here is a theoretical comparison between 5 trip choices, supposing a time value of 20$ per hour:<br />
<ol>
<li>A commute from a suburb 20 km away on an highway, without toll</li>
<li>A 10-km commute from an inner suburb on lower-speed roads</li>
<li>The first 20 km commute but with a 10 cents/km cost added</li>
<li>A 10-km bus commute with a monthly pass (so no marginal cost)</li>
<li>A 20-km bus commute with a monthly pass also</li>
</ol>
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xHpsq3lGU-Q/VgIrdBbbvkI/AAAAAAAAEVg/OWAOtZ1yv0I/s1600/CostComparisonHWwtollwo.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="446" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xHpsq3lGU-Q/VgIrdBbbvkI/AAAAAAAAEVg/OWAOtZ1yv0I/s640/CostComparisonHWwtollwo.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Comparison of different scenarios</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Without toll, the suburban highway commute is in fact the cheapest because it is the fastest, compensating its slightly higher marginal cost (gas+maintenance). So it's very tempting for someone to go live further away to benefit from cheaper housing prices, and once there, the 20-km bus commute is incredibly long and unpractical, even if its marginal cost is nil, so that the odds of people residing there using transit are very low.<br />
<br />
Once you add a toll to the highway, the 10-km car commute becomes the cheapest option. The actual monetary cost (excluding time) is also 3 times higher than with the car commute, so that the annual cost, just in variable costs, is about 1 500$ higher for the 20-km highway commuter over the 10-km urban car commuter. That is not a negligible difference.<br />
<br />
A great thing with this approach over the congestion charge approach is that tolling highways increases the cost of ALL long distance trips, and not just trips to the city core. So people can't simply escape the fees by moving to suburbs and finding jobs in other suburbs.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2TNP7BxWzII/VgIwAphyvdI/AAAAAAAAEVs/0v7r_X8HEk0/s1600/DevtChargeZone.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="368" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2TNP7BxWzII/VgIwAphyvdI/AAAAAAAAEVs/0v7r_X8HEk0/s640/DevtChargeZone.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>With a congested central city and/or a congestion charge, developments (homes AND jobs) tend to flee to suburbs to avoid the congestion in the center, favoring inter-suburb trips</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ObMvl0hHi3o/VgIwRtbFCxI/AAAAAAAAEV0/A688g6_nZ7o/s1600/DevtTolls.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="374" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ObMvl0hHi3o/VgIwRtbFCxI/AAAAAAAAEV0/A688g6_nZ7o/s640/DevtTolls.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>With tolled highways, inter-suburb trips are just as expensive as working downtown, so developments tend to gather in nodes to reduce distances, thus reducing or eliminating the need to use highways for many residents </i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Building low-cost, high-capacity, low-speed road networks</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is totally different philosophy to building road networks. Some urbanists think that road capacity induces demand, I disagree strongly, it is road SPEED that induces demand, because it lowers travel costs and makes it more affordable to travel longer distances. By that reasoning, a strong grid of low-speed roads would yield high capacity, allowing freight and service vehicles to move reasonably fast, while not inducing too much vehicle demand.<br />
<br />
Examples of this approach can be found in Japanese and European cities, where high-speed roadways skirt around urban areas, but with a high number of major streets in cities that have low speed limits.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SQ1-7Y6JkB0/VgIzJu62vfI/AAAAAAAAEWE/VEg0qvwP5FQ/s1600/Munich.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="422" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SQ1-7Y6JkB0/VgIzJu62vfI/AAAAAAAAEWE/VEg0qvwP5FQ/s640/Munich.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Munich, Germany, the highways are in orange, see how they circle the city but do not enter it, average speed on urban arterials without congestion, according to Google Maps, is about 25-30 km/h, 15 to 20 mph</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m65njvl-Vhc/VgIzJhqVAxI/AAAAAAAAEWA/UKtS9h7zZHc/s1600/Sendai.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="404" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m65njvl-Vhc/VgIzJhqVAxI/AAAAAAAAEWA/UKtS9h7zZHc/s640/Sendai.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Sendai in Japan, another example of highways avoiding the urban area, but with a strong grid of arterials inside the city, according to Google Maps, without congestion, the average car speed on these arterials is 25 km/h, 15 mph</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The advantage of such a system is that low speeds keep vehicle demand relatively low as alternatives like transit and bikes are more competitive with cars on city streets. It also makes far-flung suburbs disconnected from the downtown area because the highways fall well short of it, forcing suburbans to travel half the city on slow arterials to get where they want to go inside it.<br />
<br />
The problem of this approach is a risk of the creation of a semi-independent edge city around the highways that skirt the town if no measure (toll, planning) is taken to prevent it, which will eventually congest that peripheral highway, complicating long-distance trips and road freight much.<br />
<br />
Now, I know what some may say: this is all fine and good, but that option seems to be valid only if we start from scratch what if we already have a hierarchical road network with plenty of highways inside our metro areas?<br />
<br />
The answer is that you can gradually transfer over to that system by converting highways to boulevards like some cities did, and applying traffic-calming measures on major arterials to slow traffic down.<br />
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Limiting parking or increasing parking costs</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Parking is also a crucial method of solving congestion issues with economics. Indeed, every SOV trip begins and ends with a parking spot, so if there is none in close proximity to the destination, that is a major deterrent to vehicle trips. Any parking fee also becomes part of the cost of traveling with a personal vehicle. So if parking is expensive, then it provides a strong incentive to find another way to get to the destination. If parking is limited, then it imposes a hard limit on the number of people who can come there by car, though in that instance too parking prices should increase a lot, as a way of rationing parking spaces.<br />
<br />
As far as examples go, Calgary is an example of a city that let downtown parking prices rise very high. The average downtown parking spot going at over 450$ per month, which is very high for a city with just over 1 million people. Ottawa is an example of maximum parking limits, especially downtown. The result of Ottawa's policy is a very high transit use by downtown commuters, that some credit to Ottawa's BRT... except that the high transit use was present long before the BRT, which opening is not associated with any increase in transit use. <br />
<br />
The same can go for residential parking, which is even more crucial, because if people do not have a place to park their car at home, they can't even own one, and if they can't own one, they can't use a car to get around, at least not regularly. The presence of on-street parking can short-circuit this process as people may simply park on the street without having to pay for a spot, which is why residential parking permits make a lot of sense.<br />
<br />
On a tangent, many cities currently limit population and job densities in areas to keep vehicle traffic at a manageable levels. Except that is based on the supposition that, no matter what. people are going to travel by cars, or maybe that being able to own a car and to use it is a basic right. In fact, people have different ways of getting around, and those without cars are even forced to find other ways of getting around. So <b>if you want to limit vehicle trips to avoid congesting the road network, instead of restricting population/job density, why not restrict vehicle density by restricting the number of parking spots available? </b>That way, you can restrict vehicle trips without actually restricting development unduly.<br />
<br />
Anyway, limiting parking or having higher parking fees is a bit like a congestion charge as in they mainly target people who go downtown or any dense areas, because in lower density areas, parking is likely to be more abundant and affordable, if not outright free.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Invest in rapid transit</h3>
If you look at the economic comparison between modes above, you can notice that regular local buses do very poorly in the comparison, even compared to commutes twice as far on tolled highways. To make transit more attractive, you can try to reduce the cost of tickets, but that is not why transit is not used that much in general. With monthly passes, the marginal cost of transit use is even 0$, so it's hard to see how you could do better by subsidizing transit more. The issue is the cost of transit use in time, so to attract people to transit, it's best to have rapid transit.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-do1oLn5tsxU/VgNVFaIPAXI/AAAAAAAAEWc/CEMLy5EV0bs/s1600/CostComparisonRapidTransit.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="438" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-do1oLn5tsxU/VgNVFaIPAXI/AAAAAAAAEWc/CEMLy5EV0bs/s640/CostComparisonRapidTransit.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Rapid transit makes transit competitive in terms of marginal cost, which local buses generally fail to do</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Of course, for rapid transit to be really useful, you need to connect it to concentrations of jobs and homes, and gather developments around it, to optimize the investment. It's also important for rapid transit to go BEYOND the current limits of developments to really go through the entire metropolitan region. This reduces transfers (and every transfer increases travel time by 5-10 minutes) and helps shape developments in suburbs to be built around transit rather than around highways. Some people may say that building rapid transit is too expensive to do that, but remember that once in low-density areas, you can build rapid transit on the surface for little more than you'd pay to build the highways that are likely already there.<br />
</div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Conclusion</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK, so this was a very long post, but I think it gives a good idea of ways to deal with congestion that doesn't entail a ponzi-like ever-escalating flurry of road building and rebuilding. Of course, all of these approaches are politically hard to apply, when people are used to having something to use for free for so long, any change that has them paying more, even if fully justified, will be a hard sell. However, unless we agree to be honest about our choices, these alternatives will never be properly discussed and considered.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-76103352973765497552015-09-04T00:51:00.002-04:002017-02-21T12:04:35.548-05:00The idiocy of traffic studies<div style="text-align: justify;">
Traffic studies, or traffic impact assessments, are a big part of the job of a traffic engineer. They are an oft-forgotten part of how urban developments occur, but they should not be forgotten, because they are one of the worst obstacles there are against denser, less car-centric developments. I've seen first hand how they worked.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The idea is that before any development occurs, a traffic study must be made to predict the impacts of this new development on the current road network. The traffic study generally goes down this way:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iRewabH5uHU/VeZtj6x1UJI/AAAAAAAAEQ8/y-taO_vd5d0/s1600/Area.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="454" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iRewabH5uHU/VeZtj6x1UJI/AAAAAAAAEQ8/y-taO_vd5d0/s640/Area.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Here is an area to be studied, in gray, the existing developed zones, the yellow lines are the major arterial network and the red lines are an highway</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
1- Describe the proposed developments: how many houses, how many stores, how big are the buildings, etc...<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mJ5OmnekoX8/VeZt-rnugNI/AAAAAAAAERE/07JBm2yPzgI/s1600/PropDevt.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="508" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mJ5OmnekoX8/VeZt-rnugNI/AAAAAAAAERE/07JBm2yPzgI/s640/PropDevt.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>New residential and commercial developments proposed by developers and/or city planners</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
2-Describe the current "level of service" of major intersections around the development during peak hours, meaning evaluating the congestion level and the delays for vehicles at them. Levels of service are rated A to F, with A having the lowest delays and F, the highest delays.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vvIOJ5W5zPE/VeZuH46TMCI/AAAAAAAAERM/TWrmKRu7Fys/s1600/CurrentLOS.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="476" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vvIOJ5W5zPE/VeZuH46TMCI/AAAAAAAAERM/TWrmKRu7Fys/s640/CurrentLOS.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Current levels of service of intersections during worst peak hour</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
3-Based on the proposed development, generate likely trips for these new developments and distribute them on the network<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Rq6aeAygupI/VeZuUEBdiuI/AAAAAAAAERU/CTi43Ye0EEg/s1600/Trip%2Bdistribution.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="478" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Rq6aeAygupI/VeZuUEBdiuI/AAAAAAAAERU/CTi43Ye0EEg/s640/Trip%2Bdistribution.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>New trips generated or attracted by the new developments and where they go</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
4- Based on these new trips, estimate the new level of service and congestion level of the road system<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IQiYJycQjrQ/VeZuxszMAvI/AAAAAAAAERc/QeH4T1pAjTA/s1600/ExpectedLOS.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="508" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IQiYJycQjrQ/VeZuxszMAvI/AAAAAAAAERc/QeH4T1pAjTA/s640/ExpectedLOS.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Expected levels of service at intersections based on projected traffic levels, with unacceptably high congestion (F and E) at two intersections to the west of the highway)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
5- If these levels are unsatisfactory, then propose interventions on the bottlenecks of the network to reestablish acceptable levels of service, interventions usually paid for by developers<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qAc0AhwQxC8/VeZvCMeodYI/AAAAAAAAERk/jwoeFv9ONEc/s1600/Interventions.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="500" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qAc0AhwQxC8/VeZvCMeodYI/AAAAAAAAERk/jwoeFv9ONEc/s640/Interventions.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Interventions (usually adding lanes to certain approaches) reestablish acceptable levels of service on the intersections with levels of service worse than D</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So that's how traffic studies are usually done. Seems sensible, doesn't it? You catch congestion upstream and adapt the roads for upcoming demand, making new developments pay. Well, let me count down the ways in which it this approach is terrible.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Assumptions, "conservative" approach and overdesign</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first issue when designing a traffic study is determining the number of trips generated by new developments. How can one proceed in this? Well, like all predictions, this is based on certain assumptions, overt or hidden, and past experience. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The bible here is the ITE's Trip Generation handbooks, which collects vehicle trip data from various locations depending on land use, then presents the result in the form of graph, based on a rate of trip per assumed relevant characteristics, for example, per 1000 square feet of Gross Floor Area.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By using that data as is, there are a flurry of assumptions that are made:</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>All locations of a given land use with similar floor area (or other quantitative feature) will have a similar number of trips generated, it doesn't matter if it's a restaurant in the heart of a city or in a tiny town in the boondocks.</li>
<li>Essentially all trips generated or attracted by the location will be made in cars.</li>
<li>Congestion level and traffic conditions will have no effect on the number of trips made to and from that location.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, people may point out that these assumptions aren't always, or even frequently, true, but these still form the basis of most traffic studies. Why? Well, engineers are taught during their formation that being "conservative" with their calculations is always the best option. In this case, this has nothing to do with politics, it means always opting for more precaution, supposing higher loads than is plausible, so that the resulting design is sure to be able to withstand much bigger loads than it can be expected to face. This is rooted in structural engineering: someone who designs a bridge wants to avoid a catastrophic failure of the bridge, and so will overdesign the bridge for greater loads than necessary to make sure it doesn't happen, so loads will be high-balled and material resistance will be low-balled.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That makes plenty of sense for structural engineering, where failure destroys the structure and may even put human lives at risk, so that outcome is downright unacceptable. In that case, the cost of being conservative in one's calculations is merely a higher construction cost, there is no externality in most cases. So overdesigning a bridge has no drawback, except for the higher cost.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, the problem comes when you apply that "conservative" mentality to traffic studies. In this case, it means assuming the worst case scenario of traffic, for instance, all different buildings have their PM peak flow at the same time, all trips are made by car, and using the Peak Hour Factor to suppose that all movements achieve their maximum 15-minute vehicle flows at the same time. It also means low-balling somewhat road capacity. So you're designing roads to avoid congestion at higher traffic levels than the roads will usually see.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>This approach basically views congestion, even during the peak hour of the day, as a catastrophic failure in a way similar to a bridge falling down</b>. It also assumes that there is no externality to overdesigning an intersection, of using longer traffic signals, of having a higher number of wider lanes, wider medians, the only drawback is the cost...</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XcGy8a4mIIk/Vee_Lj8cYlI/AAAAAAAAER0/ElvVeMwVOH0/s1600/Overdesign.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="546" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XcGy8a4mIIk/Vee_Lj8cYlI/AAAAAAAAER0/ElvVeMwVOH0/s640/Overdesign.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Overdesigned intersection, made to absorb the worst possible traffic flows that it can see</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
...the reality is quite different. Huge intersections like these tend to result in high speed travel during most periods of the day when it is not congested, creating noise pollution and having the potential for very dangerous crashes. They also occupy a lot of land that could otherwise have been used for productive land uses to create value, weakening the tax base of the city. Their surplus capacity may also induce more vehicle traffic than would have happened otherwise. Finally, their huge size makes them a barrier to non-motorized travel. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Look at the earlier image, the pedestrian crosswalks are nearly 40-meter long (130-foot). It takes the better part of a minute for a pedestrian to cross the intersection, with vehicles turning left and right into his crosswalk while doing so, because with the time needed to cross the intersection, you can bet there is no exclusive, protected pedestrian phase. As a result of this phase, the cycle of the traffic signal probably approaches 3 minutes, and so the pedestrian delay to cross the intersection will probably be around 1 and a half minute, followed by nearly a minute of crossing an hostile intersection filled with fast-moving vehicles.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The result is that such an intersection forms a barrier to pedestrian and bicycle travel. The resulting roads that accompany these intersections are often large enough to make mid-block crossing a dangerous proposition to say the least, confining pedestrians to crossing only at rare intersections, often necessitating detours taking 5-10 minutes on foot... just to get on the other side of the road.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wTotKdHDQxU/VefCEIXy_9I/AAAAAAAAESA/SMJsaruviJk/s1600/MichiganLeft.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="430" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wTotKdHDQxU/VefCEIXy_9I/AAAAAAAAESA/SMJsaruviJk/s640/MichiganLeft.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Another example of an overdesigned intersection, with the "Michigan left" on the East-West approaches, left-turning vehicles cannot turn at the intersection, must continue through and do U-turns in the bulbs you can see to the right and left, so they can just turn right at the intersection</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZDcN6LAXbJE/VefD28LeSdI/AAAAAAAAESM/u1ev6TidZEc/s1600/DetourPed.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="466" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZDcN6LAXbJE/VefD28LeSdI/AAAAAAAAESM/u1ev6TidZEc/s640/DetourPed.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The overdesigned road forces residents of the mid-density housing (32 units per hectare, 12 per acre) on the bottom of the image to do a 650-meter detour to get to the store at the top, in order to gain access to a crosswalk where they can cross the road</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These externalities are ignored, it is considered to be "conservative" to spend more on a road with better vehicle capacity no matter the impact on quality of life of residents, on alternative modes of transport and on the financial sustainability of developments. This approach and the assumptions that support it make traffic studies a self-fulfilling prophecy: over-designing roads while neglecting non-car travel ensures that almost all trips in the area will be made by car, confirming the initial assumptions of quasi-universal car use, because cars are the only mode of travel the road design caters to.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To be fair, the most recent Trip Generation Handbook claims to address many of these failings by establishing some guidelines to differentiate mixed use developments from traditional sprawl, but I haven't had access to it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Pushing developments to the fringe</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since either the developer or the city has to pay for any improvements to road capacity to deal with expected new trips, and the standard approach, up to now, didn't bother to account for a reduction in vehicle trips brought about by alternative modes of transport, this creates a perverse economic incentive. Essentially, developers are going to want to target areas of the road network that are not already at capacity and develop these rather than developing in already dense areas. That way, they can minimize the likelihood of paying for improvements, and even if they can't avoid it, they can minimize these costs.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What are the locations that are most likely to be congested? Central areas of course. In most metropolitan regions, the central city is still a strong draw for jobs if nothing else, drawing people from suburbs. So the traffic on a road tends to increase as one gets closer to the center of an urban area. Even locally, developed areas in suburbs will often have more traffic as long-distance trips and local trips overlap. Older areas also tend to have narrower roads with buildings built much closer to the sidewalks, making widening the road much more difficult and expensive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kleiDcGha5Y/VekTpcuSOwI/AAAAAAAAESc/u78owyY_cm8/s1600/Region.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="512" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kleiDcGha5Y/VekTpcuSOwI/AAAAAAAAESc/u78owyY_cm8/s640/Region.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A metropolitan area where a central city is connected with smaller urban areas through highways</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P0fYxcjSLbE/VekUWdtJAFI/AAAAAAAAESk/z4LMnltS0ps/s1600/RegionCongestion.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="494" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P0fYxcjSLbE/VekUWdtJAFI/AAAAAAAAESk/z4LMnltS0ps/s640/RegionCongestion.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A likely congestion level for the major roads, red=congested, yellow=slightly congested, as a result, developments inside existing urban areas are more complicated and expensive as developers are asked to improve roads to obtain "acceptable" levels of service </i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So traffic impact studies provide economic incentives for developers to spread developments all across the metropolitan area, to use every bit of unused road capacity before even considering densifying existing areas, and to avoid concentrations of buildings rather than favor areas that are walking and transit friendly. That is the very definition of sprawl: low-density developments spread uniformly on a large and growing area, necessitating cars to connect different land uses.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Short-sightedness of the process ironically leads to congestion</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even in the optic of preventing congestion, this process is a failure. The reason is that traffic studies only address the local impacts of traffic in most cases. However, due to the sprawling nature of developments and the presence of highways, it is quite likely that the majority of trips generated or attracted by a development will not come from the area considered by the traffic study.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q6A8hDgOHrk/VekY-HYxvDI/AAAAAAAAESw/Q-rkZxPg8FM/s1600/TrafficStudyLimit.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="636" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q6A8hDgOHrk/VekY-HYxvDI/AAAAAAAAESw/Q-rkZxPg8FM/s640/TrafficStudyLimit.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In case there is a new development in the yellow area, the traffic study may be limited in scope to the area in the red box</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rLlFthJKXMY/VekZMGdUMNI/AAAAAAAAES4/v5VeurPy_Cs/s1600/TrafficStudycontext.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="430" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rLlFthJKXMY/VekZMGdUMNI/AAAAAAAAES4/v5VeurPy_Cs/s640/TrafficStudycontext.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The area in a larger context, the red box is in the top left, with many trips coming from or going to highways to connect to other neighborhoods</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So though the traffic study may help avoid local congestion around the development, it will only channel more and more cars onto the major regional roads, which are not considered during that process. These major roads, usually administrated by DOTs or Transport Ministries, are often the only rapid links available to connect people with the rest of the region and will in essence be treated as car sewers by developers and planners, more and more cars will be fed to them, which eventually results in congestion. Of course, congestion of major regional roadways that are vital for freight transport inside a region is a major issue. As a consequence, these State/provincial entities will have to plan for more and more interventions on their roads to keep increasing capacity and deal with all the traffic cities bring into them. The result is, well...</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5jZj3uhoqqY/Veka47VuluI/AAAAAAAAETE/3YaUN1pRiRI/s1600/Consequence.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="466" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5jZj3uhoqqY/Veka47VuluI/AAAAAAAAETE/3YaUN1pRiRI/s640/Consequence.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>...this. This particular right-of-way is nearly 500 feet wide.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If developments were instead allowed in already dense areas, since distances to stores and jobs are less and population density is higher, people who went to live in these places would be much less likely to use cars to get around. Since population growth in a metropolitan region is independent of developments, this means that if you force new residents to settle in car-dependent areas, to avoid local congestion in existing built areas, then you generate more and more congestion on the regional roadways which are vital to keep the region working because everything is so spread out. These roadways also happen to be at the charge of the State or province, so the cost of any capacity increase falls on all taxpayers, subsidizing far-flung suburbs who end up paying neither for local road improvements (largely paid by developers) nor for regional roads' improvement and upkeep (paid for by higher levels of governments.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So this is the lunacy of neighborhoods pushing out new developments because of fear of "congestion"... while the developments have to happen to house a growing population, so these developments are just going to happen further down the road, and the development's trips are still going to have to go through the area that refused them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Incumbents gaming the system: impact on housing affordability</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One final issue is about development economics. These studies often result in developers having to pay for interventions to prevent congestion levels from degrading, which means that the new tenants will have to pay for them through higher prices and rents. This is another way that incumbents have of using local municipal powers to give themselves certain guarantees while burdening newcomers with the price tag. The assumption is that incumbents are entitled to the same level of service they currently have, so newcomers have to pay 100% of the cost of any improvement meant to safeguard this level of service.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One car generates the same level of congestion whether it's driven by a new resident or an old-timer, so why should only newcomers have to pay to avoid the congestion generated by everyone? It is quite unfair, but that is the way that neighborhood opposition may be assuaged, at least somewhat.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/07/building-housing-alone-wont-necessarily.html">From what I understand</a>, the construction cost of new housing is vital to keeping housing costs down, even on the existing house stock. The cost of building new housing is what puts a ceiling on the price of housing, no one would pay 300 000$ for a house if they could have a similar house built for 250 000$ in the same area. The cheaper it is to build new housing, the more housing will be built, the more competition there will be and the slower prices will rise. It may even lead to older housing becoming less desirable and thus less valuable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So when you heap on new developments the total infrastructure cost, you hike up construction costs, and as such set the stage for less affordable housing in the long run.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Conclusion</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So these are my insights on traffic studies, based on my own personal involvement in them. These traffic studies only make sense in the context of sprawl, i.e. car-dependent development. In that respect, they achieve their goals in building relatively livable car-oriented areas, but they create financially unsustainable systems, increase transport needs and costs needlessly. The goal should not be to make sure that road networks are designed to allow everyone to use cars all the time to get anywhere, but to provide people with cities where they do not need to use cars and so there will be less cars on the road.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Traffic engineers need to stop considering congestion during peak hours to be "catastrophic failures". <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2015/09/tackling-congestion-as-economic-not.html">Congestion is not necessarily an engineering problem, in fact it is mainly an economic one</a>, it is a mere shortage situation. It can be dealt with by offering alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles and by creating economic incentives to take these, either by giving preferential treatment to these modes to protect them from the effects of congestion or by directly targeting drivers through congestion fees and tolls </div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-80563183043966202822015-08-15T23:08:00.000-04:002016-06-27T09:37:09.108-04:00Point of view matters: the scourge of modelitis<div style="text-align: justify;">
When I say "city", what image pops into your mind? How would you visualize a city?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Are they images that look a bit like these?</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2VhazzGr5OU/Vc0_1W4fLmI/AAAAAAAAEN0/GsREOuNKSIg/s1600/Montr%25C3%25A9alPanorama.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="384" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2VhazzGr5OU/Vc0_1W4fLmI/AAAAAAAAEN0/GsREOuNKSIg/s640/Montr%25C3%25A9alPanorama.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Montréal from Mont Royal</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vzlj79_iXlo/Vc0_3LDL3vI/AAAAAAAAEOA/tI9owNLgSDE/s1600/ChicagoEarth.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="432" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vzlj79_iXlo/Vc0_3LDL3vI/AAAAAAAAEOA/tI9owNLgSDE/s640/ChicagoEarth.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Chicago's downtown in Google Earth</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9aIyoEaOHrE/Vc0_3NHZ3wI/AAAAAAAAEN8/PKARAtI6gBU/s1600/TokyoPanorama.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9aIyoEaOHrE/Vc0_3NHZ3wI/AAAAAAAAEN8/PKARAtI6gBU/s640/TokyoPanorama.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Tokyo from the observatory of Roppongi hills</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, if this is the case, you may be suffering from modelitis.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is modelitis? Well, <b>modelitis is when people judge a city's look based on how it looks as a model or as seen from afar, rather than how it looks from the city itself.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The issue is a matter of point of view. Too often, people (often planners and architects) seem to care about a certain point of view of cities that city residents and workers do not regularly, or ever, have. When you make the model of a city, you tend to look down at it. It can be useful in that it allows people to look at a city as a whole, but that point of view is largely meaningless as few people can "enjoy" it. </div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dcYOQxdm8Ac/Vc1JDDHqiHI/AAAAAAAAEOU/sdVtz1qNtsQ/s1600/POVModelitis.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="401" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dcYOQxdm8Ac/Vc1JDDHqiHI/AAAAAAAAEOU/sdVtz1qNtsQ/s640/POVModelitis.JPG" width="640" /></a></i></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Which point of view should be favored?</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Who has that point of view in real-life? Well, birds, for one. The tiny minority who has the chance of having top-floor offices with windows or apartments in skyscrapers. People flying inside helicopters or planes. And... that's pretty much it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is this really the objective? To design cities so that birds will find them attractive? Meanwhile, the vast majority of people who live, work or shop in cities view cities from the ground, or from windows often no more than 4 or 5 stories up. THIS is the point of view that is important, but it is too often ignored by planners and architects used to make their decisions based on models or computer simulations that tend to favor this bird's eye view.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Why is there a focus on the bird's eye view?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think the main reason is simple: in previous eras, the ability to visualize a city from the sky was very limited, if not completely absent. Likewise, knowledge was more technical than theoretical, so even when builders wanted to beautify buildings, in general this was done with a focus on the point of view they had as they were building them. </div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WtBrTDqSsps/Vc9X7kk-KqI/AAAAAAAAEOo/HYdwp73Zmkc/s1600/ClermontFerrandD%25C3%25A9tail.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="370" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WtBrTDqSsps/Vc9X7kk-KqI/AAAAAAAAEOo/HYdwp73Zmkc/s640/ClermontFerrandD%25C3%25A9tail.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Old buildings in Clermont-Ferrand, note the attention to details on the windows, the cornice, etc...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NdUbrd-6MNQ/Vc9YHrvVQtI/AAAAAAAAEOw/dvYk5a_aNLk/s1600/%25C3%2589gliseD%25C3%25A9tail.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="562" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NdUbrd-6MNQ/Vc9YHrvVQtI/AAAAAAAAEOw/dvYk5a_aNLk/s640/%25C3%2589gliseD%25C3%25A9tail.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A church in France, again, note the attention to details, especially on the gate</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In previous eras, there was no distinction between architect and engineer, those who designed buildings also directly oversaw their construction. Architecture was a very hands-on profession. But in the modern era, architects work mainly with paper, models and computer simulations. Those who end up overseeing the construction of what they design are engineers, and finally, those who actually build the building are laborers who have zero input in the design of anything. Which means that all the authority for design decisions has migrated far away from the actual building, the point of view of the designer is thus completely different from that of the people who will actually use the building or reside near it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The apotheosis of this is brutalist architecture, where buildings are made of concrete, lacking fine details, but emphasizing their shape instead.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c55NXYUjeKs/Vc9dvP1AK4I/AAAAAAAAEPA/PhXBGCVB9bM/s1600/AlbanyEmpireStatePlaza.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="588" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c55NXYUjeKs/Vc9dvP1AK4I/AAAAAAAAEPA/PhXBGCVB9bM/s640/AlbanyEmpireStatePlaza.JPG" width="640" /></a></i></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Empire State Plaza in Albany is a brutalist masterpiece, it looks awesome from the sky</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VT2sdsPOBSc/Vc9dvLWE92I/AAAAAAAAEPE/TMorwK_aoI4/s1600/AlbanyEmpireStatePlaza2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="290" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VT2sdsPOBSc/Vc9dvLWE92I/AAAAAAAAEPE/TMorwK_aoI4/s640/AlbanyEmpireStatePlaza2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>But it absolutely lacks in details for pedestrians up close, the only reason you would be near these buildings is if you were on the way in or out</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So architects are now completely divorced from the point of view of the users of what they design, they instead are focused on their models and their simulations which gives them a bird's eye view of their buildings. As they're not incompetent, they make the buildings look good, but they look good from THEIR point of view. And thus, we have "modelitis".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Effects of modelitis</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Modelitis infects more than just architects, planners are also affected by that perversion of focusing on the wrong perspective.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="352" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hHmh9zMRsYg/Vc-FLWKciBI/AAAAAAAAEPk/eaE8W4vnucU/s640/ModelitisYouTube.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c"><i>A still from a video about what makes city attractive, that shows a SATELLITE VIEW of Paris as an example of order and complexity, never mind that no Parisian ever had this view of their city, save perhaps an astronaut or two.</i></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This makes planners adopt regulations that prioritize a perspective that should not be prioritized, meaning the bird's eye view or the skyline view (which is only visible from afar, and thus, not from the city itself).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The irony is that even urbanists who rebel against brutalism often articulated their criticism from the perspective of a model: versus the modernist skyscraper, they opposed a strict height-limited city, supposedly to preserve the "human scale". That criticism is also steeped in modelitis because it still focuses on the vertical scale and on uniformity as seen from afar. Someone who sees cities from the point of view of a pedestrian knows that <b>the human scale is horizontal, not vertical</b>. Meaning that <b>the height of buildings isn't that relevant to human scale, what matters is how wide they are and their proximity to one another.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This focus on verticality is a clear effect of modelitis, higher stories are usually not visible from the ground for pedestrians. Even when they are, people tend to look down, not up, so most people will not even notice how tall buildings really are unless they take the time to check. A focus on a proper point of view, one of pedestrians, would focus on how a building's 3 or 4 lowest stories meet the street, not on how high it is, ESPECIALLY when the sidewalks have awnings, in which case the buildings are largely not even visible!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sVQH3vu4xQE/Vc-D77AIvWI/AAAAAAAAEPY/x56HGD6tQ2M/s1600/ESBPOVped1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="344" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sVQH3vu4xQE/Vc-D77AIvWI/AAAAAAAAEPY/x56HGD6tQ2M/s640/ESBPOVped1.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>At the foot of the Empire State Building, sorry for the windshield perspective, the actual height of the building is irrelevant</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So even if you care about harmony and order in urbanism, you should focus on the harmony and order <b>as seen from the street</b>, not as seen on a model of the city or from the sky. For example, Vancouver has had good urban planners who understood this and allowed skyscrapers that also had podiums that maintained the "street walls".</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2IhVgXnNsnM/Vc-Gy0E1NII/AAAAAAAAEPw/IKFCD34aQcU/s1600/VancouverStreetWall.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="392" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2IhVgXnNsnM/Vc-Gy0E1NII/AAAAAAAAEPw/IKFCD34aQcU/s640/VancouverStreetWall.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>"Vancouverism", towers are present without disrupting the "walls" of the street", they are in the background, not the foreground</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kd-y1YRcp0E/Vc-HNGg8SPI/AAAAAAAAEP4/DYQHKf30KJQ/s1600/VancouverStreetView.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kd-y1YRcp0E/Vc-HNGg8SPI/AAAAAAAAEP4/DYQHKf30KJQ/s640/VancouverStreetView.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This is the view from the street, again, forgive the windshield perspective</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Modelitis largely forgets the fact that <b>buildings aren't art pieces, they are primarily consumer products</b>, and cities aren't art galleries. It prioritizes the look of a city on a model and not whether or not it fulfills its role in responding to residents' needs and desires. A city which planners suffer from modelitis will keep making decisions based on what looks good, if this happens to satisfy people's needs, it will only do so by luck, not by design. Worse, the point of view that is prioritized is one that few if any people have, so even though the city's development is shaped by aesthetic preoccupations, it may not even look good for the residents who may be faced by wind-swept plaza, blank walls and boring streets... but hey, if they take an helicopter ride, what a view they'll have!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Modelitis applied on an urban park: Square Viger in Montréal</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Square Viger in Montréal is an example, I think, of modelitis applied on the design of an urban park. It is highly controversial and the current mayor thinks of simply having it redone from the ground up.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is what it looks like from a bird's eye perspective:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k2quey1bR4Q/Vc_rQrECIzI/AAAAAAAAEQM/7rJWqTn-gac/s1600/SquareViger1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="396" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k2quey1bR4Q/Vc_rQrECIzI/AAAAAAAAEQM/7rJWqTn-gac/s640/SquareViger1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xNJXpU8gFWI/Vc_rQgV5npI/AAAAAAAAEQI/K8iCs0iEeXE/s1600/SquareViger1Bing.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="452" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xNJXpU8gFWI/Vc_rQgV5npI/AAAAAAAAEQI/K8iCs0iEeXE/s640/SquareViger1Bing.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tDeGFzh3nV4/Vc_rQkPiATI/AAAAAAAAEQQ/V2msXZ5yKpU/s1600/SquareVigerHaut.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="570" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tDeGFzh3nV4/Vc_rQkPiATI/AAAAAAAAEQQ/V2msXZ5yKpU/s640/SquareVigerHaut.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So from the sky, it offers a lot of patterns which don't look too bad. Rather than a flat surface, there are different landings separated by small flights of stairs.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, here is what it looks like from the point of view of people walking on the sidewalk:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gXye1PkCZWQ/Vc_uwtVSxnI/AAAAAAAAEQk/kVRxQeR0IDg/s1600/SquareVigerPOVpiet1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="324" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gXye1PkCZWQ/Vc_uwtVSxnI/AAAAAAAAEQk/kVRxQeR0IDg/s640/SquareVigerPOVpiet1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Bzmg1stjt4I/Vc_uwvbN6aI/AAAAAAAAEQo/8SoJD3_otlo/s1600/SquareVigerPOVpiet2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="350" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Bzmg1stjt4I/Vc_uwvbN6aI/AAAAAAAAEQo/8SoJD3_otlo/s640/SquareVigerPOVpiet2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is extremely non-welcoming, and as a result, the square is deserted, apart from the homeless, drug addicts and drug dealers. Let's count down the elements that make it unfriendly to people.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>All in concrete. There are a few trees and plants put on the concrete structures, but they have low visibility and, in the case of the plants, basically invisible when people are under these structures</li>
<li>Right angles everywhere which increases the unorganic nature of the concrete.</li>
<li>Too many stairs. Stairs are not a pleasant place to walk in, so they should be avoided where possible. They are hard on the knees, slow down travel and are a safety risk. Dividing the square needlessly into several landings separated by small stairways was a huge mistake.</li>
<li>Too many blind spots. The concrete structures and small walls result in many places being hidden from the street or from the rest of the square, this creates a feeling of insecurity as who knows who can be hidden there, especially when one knows the usual "population" that hangs around the place.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a result, it is an unmitigated disaster, no one goes there if they can avoid it. Local residents will even make detours to avoid it, even if it is the shortest path to their destination. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet, architects and the artist community still defend the square. They swear the design is good and part of Montréal's heritage. Basically, they're saying that the problem is the public who is not "educated" enough to enjoy the Square. Again, this comes back to the problem of seeing urban developments as art rather than as consumer products. On an artistic model, this may be a good design, but a Square is meant to be a public place that welcomes people to it and invite them to relax inside. In this case, the judgment of the "consumers" is clear: it is a total failure.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Conclusion</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, to sum up, it is crucial when judging cities to judge them from the point of view that matters, that of pedestrians or of residents looking out their windows. Too many people favor a bird's eye view of cities, or one from afar (skyline) that is not relevant to the actual people who live, work and shop inside cities. This results in misguided rules that ultimately hurt a city's potential at fulfilling its primary role of providing a good place to live and in which economical, cultural and social activities may occur.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, I think that we must keep in mind three things:</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li><b>The human scale is horizontal, not vertical</b>: human beings do not usually look up, so the actual height of buildings is not that relevant, but distances that are too great between locations tend to discourage people from exploring areas and from walking from one place to another and so destroys the strength of urban areas.</li>
<li><b>Buildings are first and foremost consumer products</b>: buildings exist to provide locations where people may live or where economical, cultural and/or social activities may occur. This is why they exist and their primary function. Aesthetic considerations are not meaningless, but they should be a secondary preoccupation. Sacrificing function to protect a desired form is a perversion of architecture, that should always put the human being, his needs and his desires, at the center of its process.</li>
<li><b>A pedestrian-friendly design should focus on detail, not shape</b>: buildings in many, if not most, highly attractive places are often basically simple boxes, but they compensate by focusing on the details of wall, windows and doors to provide things to look at when people are up close. The form of buildings can only ever be glimpsed by looking at a distance, and often only by looking at it from the sky.</li>
</ol>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-12768616208006341192015-08-07T01:35:00.000-04:002015-11-30T11:44:07.812-05:00In defense of by-right zoning: the dangers of arbitrary planning<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
An argument I've sometimes heard when strict zoning is criticized is that it's not so bad, because developers can simply ask for a zoning change or variances, which is certainly true. This is hard to get when you are in a residential area, but in most downtowns, which are primarily offices and commercial areas, the local opposition will be much less, so developers have more chances to get it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some urbanists and architects also like this approach because it gives a way for urban planners to review any given project and extract concessions from the developer in return for approving the zoning change they request. Since developers are often seen by urban planners and architects as greedy people who have no sense of aesthetics, subjecting their projects to review by "proper" architects and planners is viewed as a good thing, and the zoning change provides a lever to force developers to change their plans. They refuse, they don't get their zoning change.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, is this actually a good approach? To have zoning limits so strict that almost all projects have to demand variances and changes and reviewed by urban planners and architects?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h3>
Uncertainty and land prices</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've already made the argument that land prices are extremely useful in shaping cities. Urban development is an economic enterprise, and as such is extremely reactive to price signals, the most important one here is the price of land. Any person wishing to develop an area must first buy the land on which the development will occur. The more expensive the land, the higher the density of what developers will build. If land is too expensive, then low-density projects are nonviable economically and so are excluded. If land is cheap, then low-density projects are viable and may occur.<br />
<br />
But what determines the value of land? The land owner wants to sell for the highest possible price, the land buyer wants to buy for the lowest possible price, but what yardstick helps to determine the proper value of land?<br />
<br />
Well, <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2015/06/how-modern-zoning-affects-land-value.html">my theory</a>, which I believe is pretty sound, is that the potential profit value of development is what decides how much the land will sell for. In essence, a development generates revenues that are the difference between the market value per square foot and the construction cost, times the number of square feet that can be built.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mEkzdl_lzHE/Vb5x2bz-06I/AAAAAAAAENQ/ONxG-fyu4vk/s1600/Reasoning.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mEkzdl_lzHE/Vb5x2bz-06I/AAAAAAAAENQ/ONxG-fyu4vk/s640/Reasoning.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
Land owners know this and will set their expectations for the price of the land they sell accordingly. It's important to understand that, generally speaking, only the building itself generates revenue. Parking (unless it is tolled) doesn't generate revenues, neither do trees or grass (green buffer space), etc... It's the building that generates revenues, that is either rented or sold to people who want to use it. The rarer the land, the more land owners can negotiate a higher share of these expected revenues, the more abundant the land, the lower the share they can negotiate.<br />
<br />
So what does that mean for urban developments? The market value is largely an input from the real estate market, it's relatively easy to get from looking at other developments. Construction costs can also often be approximated based on local construction costs. So the big question here is how many square feet of revenue-generating floor area can you build? That will determine what the land is worth.<br />
<br />
So we come back here to the <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2015/02/floor-area-ratio-height-limits-minimum.html">Floor-Area Ratio</a>. I once said that it was not a proper vector for urban regulations because there is no direct negative externality of FAR that justifies its direct regulatory control. However, I may have jumped to conclusions too soon. The point is that controlling FAR may actually help the market determine with a greater amount of certainty the total potential revenue of development on land.<br />
<br />
For example, if the value of office space is, say 300$ per square foot (not the rent, the actual value), and the construction cost is 200$ per square foot, that's a total revenue of 100$ per square foot. If allowed FAR is 200%, then that means that development revenue is limited to 2 square feet of revenue-generating floor area per square foot of land. So there is a ((300$/sq ft - 200$/sq ft) X 2 sq ft floor area/sq ft of land) 200$ revenue associated to each square foot of land, which is a hard cap on land value. If land owners get on average half the total revenue, then the land value would be about 100$ per square foot.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So when FAR is limited, either directly or through a combination of height limit and lot coverage limit (setbacks, margins, etc...)...<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EbREWe0oAuU/Vb6AkKwteQI/AAAAAAAAENg/douLMjGrLs8/s1600/Margins.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="600" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EbREWe0oAuU/Vb6AkKwteQI/AAAAAAAAENg/douLMjGrLs8/s640/Margins.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Front setback and minimum margins reducing the area the building can cover, here, the maximum coverage is 42% of the lot, if there is a height limit, then FAR is indirectly limited (for example, if 5 stories are allowed, maximum FAR is 210%)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
...or through minimum parking requirements, then this helps clear up the uncertainty as to the amount of revenue-producing floor area that can be built on any given lot. This helps both the seller and the buyer of the land establish a potential land value, and thus helps them come to an agreement on price much faster.<br />
<br />
But what happens when you keep zoning very strict with the expectation that you will consider requests for variances and zoning changes on a case-by-case basis?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Well, in that case, an arbitrary component is introduced, creating uncertainty. The zoning may currently limit FAR to 100%, but maybe in one case the city allowed one project to have 200% FAR based on a zoning change request. What message does that send to every land owner in the area? <i>Even if your land is zoned for a 100% FAR, you should price your land as if it were zoned twice as high</i>. Of course, developers would be wary to pay such high prices, because there's no guarantee they'll get a zoning change.</div>
<br />
The result is making development less likely, as land owners price their lots well over what they are currently zoned for while developers, afraid of risk, may balk at the idea of paying land a certain price that is only justified with a zoning change.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Other impacts: corruption, blackmail and administrative bottleneck</h3>
Everywhere in the world, arbitrary power is always associated with another phenomenon: corruption. Without strict guidelines, public administrators have the freedom to make decisions based only on their own feelings without having to explain them to anyone. As a result, given the massive amount of money involved, developers have an incentive to do all they can to get administrators to come down on their side. I'm sure developers would prefer doing their thing without having to grease a few palms, but in the context of arbitrary urban planning, the temptation may be too great.<br />
<br />
This may also go the other way, with either administrators or even sometimes NIMBY groups using the situation as leverage to extort favors from developers. For example, forcing developers to pay directly for the repair or replacement of local infrastructure, or forcing the developer to provide public goods like parks in exchange for building permits. This can result in much higher prices for new constructions as all the burden of providing for local infrastructure needs can be unloaded on them alone. This doesn't mean that having developers provide certain social goods is a totally bad idea, rules that establish certain fees to contribute to a local infrastructure fund to pay for the marginal cost of new developments may be a sensible approach, but this has to be set in the rules long before any project is proposed.<br />
<br />
Finally, there is one final drawback. Setting up a case-by-case review process of every project is extremely expensive in terms of labor and time. Since cities have a limited amount of planners and architects, if there is a construction boom, then the review process might get congested as the urban planning department is overwhelmed with projects to review and comment. This can lead to delays and a limit on how many projects get the green light in cities, limiting new constructions just when demand is highest for them.<br />
<br />
All these factors coalesce into one major final negative effect: the elimination of small-scale developers who do not have the funds and expertise to deal with all these issues and of small-scale developments that do not yield the revenues to justify facing down all that process.<br />
<br />
<h3>
In conclusion </h3>
I think what cities need is not more control by urban planners and architects, but less... arbitrary inputs in the development process need to be reduced to a minimum. Where rules exist, they must be applied upstream, based on clear, established guidelines to reduce, or even eliminate, uncertainty. When upzoning is required to deal with higher demand (and I believe rules must have a pro-redevelopment bias), this upzoning should be gradual and affect a large area, not just spot-by-spot rezoning based on specific requests. Even exceptional projects should ideally be realized in the context of specific rules, for instance through the purchase of "air rights" (buying unused FAR limits or height limits from lesser density developments) or incentive-based zoning (giving FAR or height bonuses for certain initiatives).<br />
<br />
As in most things, in terms of urban development, the rule of law must be predominant, not the rule of men, in order to provide certainty and to level the playing field.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-23539575789145264642015-07-19T21:47:00.001-04:002015-11-30T11:48:36.296-05:00The perverse effects of on-street parking<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've been silent for quite a while, a result of my moving to a condo in downtown Montréal, but now it's finally (mostly) over, so back to our scheduled programming...<br />
<br />
So let's get back to one of my biggest heresies with regards to conventional urbanism: namely my opposition of on-street parking.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most North American and European urbanists tend to favor on-street parking. The reasoning is that cars parked on the street narrow the roadway and protects pedestrians from cars in movement. It also protects the pedestrian corridor from intrusion by cars. My <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-importance-of-impressions-how-on.html">counter-argument</a> is that on-street parking claims the street for cars exclusively and pushes pedestrians on narrow sidewalks, squeezing them between building walls and steel walls. As streets are the most dominant public place in cities, parked cars result in them being taken away wholly for vehicles, in movement or parked.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I also believe that one of the first rules of good urban design is that <i>we must treat cars as a shameful disease to be hidden from the public view so that urban design can be centered on human beings</i>. The presence of too many cars is deleterious to any urban environment, so having cars right in your face, parked on the curb, is the exact opposite of what we should aim for. Hide the cars away so that you can focus the environment on people, not vehicles.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Compare and contrast:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hkZFimJeqXQ/VacKobiTtqI/AAAAAAAAELA/ySbaTpwWnPk/s1600/LyonOSP.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="258" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hkZFimJeqXQ/VacKobiTtqI/AAAAAAAAELA/ySbaTpwWnPk/s640/LyonOSP.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Lyon in France, remember that this isn't the point of view of pedestrians, but of car drivers, pedestrians are pushed to the side</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9Jz_H2jDHxQ/VacKooxYEfI/AAAAAAAAELI/YD5FdoD78P4/s1600/Sendai.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="348" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9Jz_H2jDHxQ/VacKooxYEfI/AAAAAAAAELI/YD5FdoD78P4/s640/Sendai.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Sendai, in this case, pedestrians really have this view</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="324" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8zzOst6PXyg/VacKoUmeWMI/AAAAAAAAELE/tQVID7_Dn04/s640/LyonOSP2.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="640" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Another place in Lyon, look at the lack of space between cars and building walls, is this some place to hang around in?</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yu5AVLtIxv4/VacKo_uFxWI/AAAAAAAAELM/b07k9s-8m-g/s1600/Sendai2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="272" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yu5AVLtIxv4/VacKo_uFxWI/AAAAAAAAELM/b07k9s-8m-g/s640/Sendai2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>One residential street in Sendai</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Now look at these major arterial streets, again in Lyon and Sendai:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4l-lpBrsUvw/VacLg3TggVI/AAAAAAAAELk/UdwYF5wdldk/s1600/LyonBlvrd.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="276" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4l-lpBrsUvw/VacLg3TggVI/AAAAAAAAELk/UdwYF5wdldk/s640/LyonBlvrd.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Arterial in Lyon</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HD_6rvnkEFw/VacLptkdLyI/AAAAAAAAELo/bCUPVddcopc/s1600/SendaiBlvrd.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="304" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HD_6rvnkEFw/VacLptkdLyI/AAAAAAAAELo/bCUPVddcopc/s640/SendaiBlvrd.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Arterial in Sendai</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But again, this is a view from the street, not from the sidewalk, where people will actually walk, what do the sidewalks in each example look like?<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ynb3mGcglew/VacL9rFVGhI/AAAAAAAAELw/XWOcmLofb4w/s1600/LyonBlvrd2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="371" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ynb3mGcglew/VacL9rFVGhI/AAAAAAAAELw/XWOcmLofb4w/s400/LyonBlvrd2.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Lyon, narrow sidewalks, where only two people can walk side by side, stuck between cars and walls</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HT2wGBSEN7I/VacL9nk3uSI/AAAAAAAAEL0/HPGXGY7f5XM/s1600/SendaiBlvrd2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HT2wGBSEN7I/VacL9nk3uSI/AAAAAAAAEL0/HPGXGY7f5XM/s640/SendaiBlvrd2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Sendai, sidewalks seem 2 to 3 times as large, providing a comfortable walking area no matter how many pedestrians there are, and even a bike path</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, taste may be subjective, and while I much prefer the Japanese examples, some may favor the French ones. But that is not the point of this post. I'm instead going to think about the practical ramifications of on-street parking</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The government as a parking provider</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of the most evident consequences of deciding to satisfy parking needs with on-street parking is making the government a main parking provider, if not the most important parking provider. Streets are almost the very definition of a public good, they can't readily be privatized, they must be planned and publicly provided. As a result, that means that the parking spots that can be found on the street are also publicly-owned. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So when governments commit to build on-street parking everywhere, how much parking are we talking about here?<br />
<br />
Well, if we take one average city block that is 300 meters or 1 000 feet long and 60 meters or 200 feet deep, and we have a public right-of-way that has 2 3-meter (10 ft) lanes, 2 2,5-meter (8 feet) shoulders for parking and 2 1,5-meter wide sidewalks (5 ft)...<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-thUo_vDSAPo/VavEqLxfynI/AAAAAAAAEMM/x2b0_cxdrZU/s1600/streetdiagram.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="322" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-thUo_vDSAPo/VavEqLxfynI/AAAAAAAAEMM/x2b0_cxdrZU/s640/streetdiagram.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Basic ROW shape</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
...that is a total of about 14 meters or 46 ft of ROW.<br />
<br />
So the typical block would look a bit like this:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fQI7lTwL4VY/VavFsvO4MfI/AAAAAAAAEMU/r5y1bGc-yrE/s1600/DiagramBlock.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="152" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fQI7lTwL4VY/VavFsvO4MfI/AAAAAAAAEMU/r5y1bGc-yrE/s640/DiagramBlock.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Typical block, in red, the parking places</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
We then have a 74 m x 314 m block size, including public ROW, for a total of 23 236 square meters, around 5,8 acres.<br />
<br />
We have 720 meters of parking space on the street (2 x 60 m + 2 x 300 m). Supposing an average of 6 meters per car, that is 120 parking spots, which occupy about 8% of the land area.<br />
<br />
So by committing to build space for parking on the street, the government commits to building 51 parking spots per hectare or around 21 per acre, or for a bigger scale, around 5 000 parking spots per square kilometer (13 000 per square mile).<br />
<br />
So if you have a city with a built area of 200 square kilometers (80 square miles), that city will have built around 1 million on-street parking spots. That is undeniably a massive amount of parking, all provided by the city government.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Ramifications of the government as a parking provider</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The fact that the government is a parking provider has a lot of consequences. Since the government is providing so much parking, parking will be seen as a <b>public service</b>, because, well, it is a service that is provided by public authorities. People who depend on that service will therefore hold the government accountable for the quantity and quality of parking. In other words, more than just a parking provider, the government will be forced to take on the role of managing the parking supply in order to satisfy its voters.<br />
<br />
This role of supply manager is actually what leads governments to adopt minimum parking requirements and limits on density (most of the objections to new developments in already dense areas are rooted in fear of overwhelming existing on-street parking, making it harder for residents to find parking there). Off-street parking requirements were conceived initially as a way to prevent parking overflow on city streets, in order to keep parking spaces free on the street, it was required of developers to build off-street parking so that the people who live/work/shop in these developments wouldn't overwhelm the public provision of on-street parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Without on-street parking, the government could have left developers to deal with their parking problems by themselves, or let the market provide only as much parking as drivers were willing to pay for. With on-street parking, city governments were forced to intervene, as a major parking provider itself, it couldn't turn a blind eye on issues of parking supply and demand. The government can't say that parking issues aren't its business when it is the main parking provider in the city.<br />
<br />
Of course, in a situation where on-street parking is significantly under-priced or even free, any off-street parking operator choosing to put a price on its parking lot can expect people to just park on the street if there is any place available there, which can result in parking overflow on streets even as the parking lot stays empty. This can lead to the city government coming down on that parking owner, because this is exactly the situation that the city government sought to avoid by having minimum parking requirements.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Economic ramifications</h3>
In case I've not made it clear enough, my position on parking is the following: <i>there should only be as much parking as drivers are willing to pay for, parking supply should neither be inflated by government (minimum requirements) nor limited by government (maximum parking rules)</i>.<br />
<br />
In general, letting developers decide how much parking to build should result in this "user payer" situation, as they will make economic calculations and build only as much parking as they can justify economically. But what happens when they have to compete with on-street parking, often provided for free by the government? It completely distorts the market, private off-street parking options will generally not even exist, because who would park there for a fee when they could park for free on the street? At least, not unless on-street parking is completely overwhelmed.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a result, on-street parking completely destroys the pricing mechanism for parking. Donald Shoup favored a pricing ideal for on-street parking in that the price of parking should be such that 80% of parking spots are occupied, if it's more, rise the price, if it's less, lower it. That is one approach... but implementing it still means that much (if not most) of the time in most locations, the proper price to reach that goal is... 0$. So you still have people being provided a parking spot for free in many places, especially in low-density areas. Yet on-street parking still has a cost, it's not free to provide.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reason why the market can provide a good approximation of "user-payer" in many cases is that supply is free to increase or decrease with price. If the price of a good increases, then developers will provide more of it to profit from it. On the other hand, if the price of a good decreases, or if more profitable uses of resources come to be, supply can decrease as previously profitable parking spaces can become less profitable than alternatives, or even outright unprofitable.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D9JkqiaDbKE/VawAtJNOENI/AAAAAAAAEMo/vPgn442ZoPo/s1600/Choixe1.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D9JkqiaDbKE/VawAtJNOENI/AAAAAAAAEMo/vPgn442ZoPo/s640/Choixe1.PNG" width="506" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The owner of a private parking lot has the option of continuing operating his lot or selling for development, in the case presented here, over a 30-year analysis, it's better to keep operating the lot...</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v6vDZOTePUs/VawBFFrOLeI/AAAAAAAAEMw/sKK5JUu45As/s1600/Choice2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v6vDZOTePUs/VawBFFrOLeI/AAAAAAAAEMw/sKK5JUu45As/s640/Choice2.PNG" width="506" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>But if the value of land increases, it may become more profitable to just sell the lot for development, reducing the supply of parking but increasing the supply of land to develop</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But with on-street parking, that's not the case at all. We are dealing with a fixed supply set up by the government. You can vary the price, but you cannot decrease the supply, at least, not in any useful way. One of the big problems is the geographic form of on-street parking. These narrow bands of asphalt between the travel lanes and sidewalk are utterly useless for developers. The best you can do is rearrange them to be wider sidewalks, bike paths or a green buffer between street and sidewalk, but nothing else. There is no versatility here, because the land cannot be recuperated for development, it doesn't have to compete with alternative, productive uses for it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So if we agree that a proper parking policy should result in parking users paying for the parking that they use so that their transport choice isn't subsidized, then on-street parking is the greatest thorn in our side. It is hard to price, and the supply is fixed and cannot vary depending on demand, and as a result, in lower density areas, it will push out private for-fee parking and result in on-street parking and mandated off-street parking being free.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
So there was my take on the perverse effects of on-street parking, how it makes providing parking and managing parking supply a government responsibility while disrupting the pricing mechanism for parking spots, largely eliminating for-profit parking businesses except in a few exceptional places. I accept that, unfortunately, most North American city streets are already built much too wide to accommodate parking, but I think that on-street parking is one of the greatest obstacles to a sane parking policy that would have drivers assume the full cost of the parking they use.<br />
<br />
Parking shouldn't be a government's responsibility, yet that is ultimately the result of allowing on-street parking to be massively used. This leads to the absurd hypocrisy that city governments will take more seriously their "responsibility" to provide sufficient parking to all drivers, but not their responsibility to make sure all their residents can find proper housing. As if an human being not being able to afford a place to live in is sad, yet tolerable, but a car without a parking space is unacceptable.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-91310834635332155882015-06-16T00:55:00.000-04:002015-06-16T00:55:16.507-04:00In defense of use separation<div style="text-align: justify;">
How's that for a clickbait title? No, it's not a late April First joke either.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of the first advice people will read from urbanists is a strong recommendation in favor of mixing uses. It always comes back, however, it is not actually very clearly defined what "mixed use" means, or rather how close must uses be before we consider that they are mixing?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, all would agree that the following pattern (green=residential, red=commercial/industrial) is not mixed, as the two uses are grouped together with a buffer (white) between each:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iaO9dHPHBQs/VX5DKyM7_YI/AAAAAAAAEHc/kswmyzmv67k/s1600/PatternNotMixed.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iaO9dHPHBQs/VX5DKyM7_YI/AAAAAAAAEHc/kswmyzmv67k/s320/PatternNotMixed.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Clearly not mixed</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the other hand, the following pattern, all would agree, is mixed:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O0_u1Snf_aM/VX5DV2XTYsI/AAAAAAAAEHk/tiTH4yQ2uFs/s1600/PatternMixed.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="227" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O0_u1Snf_aM/VX5DV2XTYsI/AAAAAAAAEHk/tiTH4yQ2uFs/s320/PatternMixed.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
But what about the two following patterns, are they mixed or not?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5XMWWylv2Kw/VX5DhVoxhrI/AAAAAAAAEHw/LzCrGNkZZHk/s1600/PatternMixedOrNot1.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5XMWWylv2Kw/VX5DhVoxhrI/AAAAAAAAEHw/LzCrGNkZZHk/s320/PatternMixedOrNot1.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HGpQxxjwLt8/VX5DhNUTPaI/AAAAAAAAEHs/sTIrCCzChdg/s1600/PatternMixedOrNot2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HGpQxxjwLt8/VX5DhNUTPaI/AAAAAAAAEHs/sTIrCCzChdg/s320/PatternMixedOrNot2.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's easy to find the first pattern, just check out any cities in sprawl, with stores and industries gathered around highway interchanges and endless exclusively residential areas beyond that:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6rs5tQIvb54/VX9qm_ljnWI/AAAAAAAAEII/NZuG85XMpug/s1600/AtlantaMap.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="446" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6rs5tQIvb54/VX9qm_ljnWI/AAAAAAAAEII/NZuG85XMpug/s640/AtlantaMap.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Search for "stores" near Atlanta, the center of the image is all residential (the stores in the area are mainly false positives or home businesses), stores are concentrated at highway interchanges</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, the second pattern is found next to nowhere. The idea of having stores equally distributed in a city seems to make little to no sense. In some very dense cities, you do have small stores here and there, but most stores still gather in nodes or on certain arterial streets, and offices tend to concentrate in some areas too.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even in the densest cities, like Barcelona, this tendency for commercial uses to group together is easily seen:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9LH97j0x1r8/VX9xNBHZjlI/AAAAAAAAEIY/Z-eUD2TOfX0/s1600/BarcelonaIdentified.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="496" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9LH97j0x1r8/VX9xNBHZjlI/AAAAAAAAEIY/Z-eUD2TOfX0/s640/BarcelonaIdentified.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Barcelona, stores in red, restaurants in green, some nodes and corridors identified</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k4RmT_JhA_w/VX9xl1qcjFI/AAAAAAAAEIg/3UNtHgljs9M/s1600/LePlateau.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="580" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k4RmT_JhA_w/VX9xl1qcjFI/AAAAAAAAEIg/3UNtHgljs9M/s640/LePlateau.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Good example of the linear pattern, Montréal's Plateau-Mont-Royal borough, the vast majority of stores located on a few streets, with only a few lone stores located elsewhere, 70% of local trips are done on foot or on a bike</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ohK7NwsowNw/VX9zhe-_4CI/AAAAAAAAEI0/Of1TLPcZw4E/s1600/Romorantin.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="492" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ohK7NwsowNw/VX9zhe-_4CI/AAAAAAAAEI0/Of1TLPcZw4E/s640/Romorantin.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>French village, typical example of the central node pattern</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So again, what does "mixed use" mean? Clearly, we have plenty of successful cities where uses are separated, in fact, it is hard to find someplace where uses aren't separated to some extent, resulting in active commercial areas and sleepy residential streets, even in the heart of cities.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MKtVzvUzzCI/VX91ngeQfeI/AAAAAAAAEJA/DdM3mINAgEg/s1600/PlateauSaint-Laurent.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="252" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MKtVzvUzzCI/VX91ngeQfeI/AAAAAAAAEJA/DdM3mINAgEg/s640/PlateauSaint-Laurent.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>St-Laurent Boulevard in Montréal, every building is commercial or office</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-85f6AowNyjM/VX91xyoAAdI/AAAAAAAAEJI/cFIt13M7Dlc/s1600/Plateau1rueapresSaintLaurent.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="294" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-85f6AowNyjM/VX91xyoAAdI/AAAAAAAAEJI/cFIt13M7Dlc/s640/Plateau1rueapresSaintLaurent.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>1 bloc away from St-Laurent boulevard, all buildings are residential</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9VsNOgoBqEA/VX92GsD1LZI/AAAAAAAAEJQ/asIqrnETiPo/s1600/ManhattanCommercial.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="254" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9VsNOgoBqEA/VX92GsD1LZI/AAAAAAAAEJQ/asIqrnETiPo/s640/ManhattanCommercial.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A commercial street in Manhattan, again, nearly everything at street level is commercial</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZPCoJGQQ05A/VX92Q8_tcXI/AAAAAAAAEJY/CpRKpPIdxKk/s1600/ManhattanResidential.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="346" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZPCoJGQQ05A/VX92Q8_tcXI/AAAAAAAAEJY/CpRKpPIdxKk/s640/ManhattanResidential.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Mainly residential street in Manhattan</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Mixed use buildings</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some could point out that there are mixed use buildings, especially common in the highest density cities in the world, like Barcelona and Manhattan. The classic mixed use building is quite simply a commercial ground floor with residential apartments or offices on the upper floors, a type of building very common in the world's densest cities.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nNEbi_o-ER8/VX93BeIN4wI/AAAAAAAAEJg/Iz5RorTVSBQ/s1600/BarcelonaVerticalSeparation.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="430" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nNEbi_o-ER8/VX93BeIN4wI/AAAAAAAAEJg/Iz5RorTVSBQ/s640/BarcelonaVerticalSeparation.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Mixed use buildings in Barcelona, store fronts on the ground floor, apartments above</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These can be seen as an evolution of the traditional urban houses of earlier times, where people lived in the same building in which they worked, in the rooms on the 2nd floor or above, while the ground floor was reserved for their economic occupation, whether it be restaurant, a small office or even a small workshop.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But is it really mixed? Yes, there are 2 or more uses per building, but it is not mixed evenly in the buildings, there is a clear pattern. Commercial uses, if present, are always on the ground floor, I've never seen a building with residential units on the ground floor and commercial uses on the upper floors. We could even talk of <b>vertical use separation</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Why do uses separate?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So clearly, these patterns seem pretty universal, whether a city is planned or not, there is a phenomenon wherein uses will tend to separate. Why is that?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think the main reason is that locations are not necessarily universally desirable for all uses. In fact, desirability for a given location often varies wildly depending on perspective. If we think about it, we might identify a few desired features of each use.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<b>Residential</b>: people typically want their housing to be located near to transport infrastructure and to stores and services, HOWEVER, people also want privacy and quiet for their residence. Which means that highly-trafficked streets are not desired by residential uses as it results in a lot of noise and may affect privacy, especially for the ground floor. Residential uses therefore want some buffer with main arterials, whether that buffer is horizontal (located on a side street for instance) or vertical (once you're high enough, you're no longer as affected by noise nor do your perceive traffic so much). Once upon a time, before elevators, higher units would be undesirable because of the stairs, but with elevators, that's a moot point.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-njF8eo9zTfw/VX-gI6sSVkI/AAAAAAAAEKU/BO5KFcM8bvg/s1600/Desired%2BResidential.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="428" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-njF8eo9zTfw/VX-gI6sSVkI/AAAAAAAAEKU/BO5KFcM8bvg/s640/Desired%2BResidential.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Residential desirability, per floor, in relation to an arterial (the
large black road), red=undesirable, yellow=slightly undesirable,
green=desirable</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Note that this desirability manifests through prices. For having shopped for a condo recently, I can tell you that the higher the floor, the higher the price, and that ground and basement units are significantly cheaper (yet remain on the market longer).<br />
<br />
<b>Commercial:</b> Stores and other commercial offices tend to have a mirror desirability to residential uses. Though both residential and commercial want to be near one another, people choosing their residence flee from traffic and noise, while stores are drawn to them like moths to a flame. Well, noise is not desired but commercial uses are often indifferent to it. Traffic is crucial because the best publicity is being on the way of thousands of people's daily trips. Whether that traffic is pedestrians, cyclists, drivers or, sometimes, transit users, it doesn't matter. The important thing here is VISIBILITY, the opposite of privacy. The more people pass in sight of a store, the higher the potential for pass-by trips. Unlike residential uses, the higher the floor, the less visible it is, so the less desirable the location.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZANeD-MoKAw/VX-cxcMPoYI/AAAAAAAAEKA/sZ2wkaGXb0E/s1600/DesiredCommercial.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="416" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZANeD-MoKAw/VX-cxcMPoYI/AAAAAAAAEKA/sZ2wkaGXb0E/s640/DesiredCommercial.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Commercial desirability, per floor, in relation to an arterial (the
large black road), red=undesirable, yellow=slightly undesirable,
green=desirable</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Note that commercial uses want traffic, but they also create traffic. Indeed, the best way to attract life on a street is to have plenty of commercial uses there. So commercial uses will tend to congregate to benefit from each other's traffic, and to create city-wide visibility for that commercial area, to generate more traffic. At the same time, this traffic will tend to push away residential uses.<br />
<br />
<b>Offices:</b> offices are workplaces where plenty of people work. often on fixed schedules. As a result, offices generate a lot of trips in the peak travel periods, but they require little to no freight to operate as they produce services, not goods. Offices don't care much about visibility or privacy in general, though noise may be distracting for employees, they don't have much pass-by clients, and even less pass-by employees! People using their services generally learn of their existence through other means (internet, business contacts, etc...). What offices want most of all is to be located at nodes of regional passenger transport links. That way, they have access to larger pools of potential employees and they don't have to fear lost productivity due to congestion getting to work. So they will tend to mass around transport nodes, public transport or highways.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_5n8lfGpCqQ/VX-fsEit7NI/AAAAAAAAEKM/QfCvn4C2oYU/s1600/DesiredOffice.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="324" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_5n8lfGpCqQ/VX-fsEit7NI/AAAAAAAAEKM/QfCvn4C2oYU/s640/DesiredOffice.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Office desirability, per floor, in relation to an arterial (the
large black road), red=undesirable, yellow=slightly undesirable,
green=desirable</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Like commercial uses, they sometimes have an advantage in congregating together, because sometimes offices require each other's services. Also, in the modern world, with job security on the decline, the concentration of industries in given nodes allows to mitigate the effects of changing jobs. Having your contract not renewed is bad, but if you have half a dozen other potential employers within a 10-minute walking distance, at least you can hope for not having to move your family to accommodate your next job.<br />
<br />
Since offices generate quite a bit of traffic, commercial uses may be attracted to them too.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Industries:</b> Industries are a bit like offices, with high peaked traffic, though generally not as high, especially with modern automation. However, unlike offices, industries depend a lot on freight, so instead of desiring locations near nodes of passenger transport links, they want to be near nodes of freight transport links: train station, ports, interstate freeway exits. Most industries rely on just-in-time transport, so unreliable freight, including due to congestion, is highly undesirable for them and they may move out of areas if freight becomes too unreliable. Unlike all the other uses, industries will not particularly favor urban areas, industries take too much space, which is expensive in cities, and they don't benefit from traffic. They still want to be reachable to employees, but they can be satisfied with being out of the way and accessible by shuttles, because transport demand is highly predictable and limited in time.<br />
<br />
Note that when freight and passenger transport links overlap, like on highways, this can create tensions between industries and offices who can then go after the same locations, submerge them with congestion, which pushes industries ever further out.<br />
<br />
So to sum up, each use favors different locations. So in a completely free development context, we could expect uses to separate over time anyway following a certain logic. Some uses will still favor proximity to one another (residential and commercial uses mostly), but they will tend to maintain some buffer, whether horizontal or vertical, with one another.<br />
<br />
<h3>
So what does it all mean?</h3>
What this reasoning would entail is that use separation can be expected to be a spontaneous reaction and is not necessarily bad.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oOYK-wTV-DE/VX-koWQ-EnI/AAAAAAAAEKg/lCEPfCPOeq0/s1600/ShinjukuCommercial.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="374" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oOYK-wTV-DE/VX-koWQ-EnI/AAAAAAAAEKg/lCEPfCPOeq0/s640/ShinjukuCommercial.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Though Japanese zoning allows many different uses in its commercial zones, this area near Shinjuku station is almost exclusively commercial and offices, with stores and offices occupying all the floors of 6-to-8-story buildings</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Uses can be separated, yet still be in proximity with each other, such as the traditional commercial arterial of streetcar suburbs, with residential side streets. This also means that it is theoretically possible for very competent planners to predict where uses will gravitate to and use an exclusive zoning system to shape developments in a way that they would likely have evolved into anyway. However, this really requires excellent planning skill and constant revisions of zones to provide for sufficient supply of land to respond to evolving demand.<br />
<br />
So we get to a final definition of "mixed use", a regulatory one. A zone can be called "mixed use" in urban planning if it allows for multiple uses within it without regulatory oversight. This is ideal because it creates a margin of error for planners. With exclusive zoning, planners need to be able to predict exactly how demand for the different uses will evolve. If they do not, then they create artificial land shortages for a type of use and over-supply of land for other uses, which unbalances cities and their local economies. A sadly too typical response in these cases is building new roads to open up new lands to solve the shortage rather than review current zones.<br />
<br />
With mixed use zoning, uses can grow inside each other's zones, at least in certain areas zoned for mixed uses. This mitigates the problem of zoning and reduces the need for hyper-competent planning (which is a beast as rare as unicorns).<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
What is "mixed use"? There is no one correct definition, everyone could debate on how close is close enough before uses are considered to be "mixing". And anyway, left to their own devices, uses are quite likely to separate and congregate on their own, as each use favors different types of location. The important thing should be proximity and scale. You can have a city where uses are separated, as long as these uses are separated based on a human, walking, scale and not on a "highway-driving car" scale, that way, uses can remain in close proximity to one another, when it is beneficial for them.<br />
<br />
The most important aspect of "mixed use" is the regulatory one: if zoning is used, zones should allow for multiples uses inside them, to provide margins of error to planners and their inevitable failure to predict correctly evolving demand for the different uses. If regulations don't allow for mixed uses, then it will inevitably create shortages of land for some uses and over-supply for others, creating distortions in the economy and failing to allow communities to grow so as to respond to their own needs.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-15049260683730976572015-06-06T17:32:00.000-04:002016-07-28T10:54:39.407-04:00How modern zoning affects land value and incentivizes sprawl<div style="text-align: justify;">
As I already pointed out, in any economy
(be it socialist, capitalist, feudal, etc...) that uses money, the
price of goods sends signals to consumers and guide their consumption.
In terms of development, the value that is most crucial is land value.
If land is cheap, then it sends a signal that land is abundant and it
can be wasted without fear of bankruptcy, which results in low-density
developments. If land is expensive, then it signals developers to build
higher densities because land that desirable is rare. Land prices are
what motivates high density developments in a housing market with little
regulation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But that still leaves one big question: <b>what determines the value of land?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The answer in the end is that <b>the potential profit from developing the land determines its value.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So
if housing is in short supply and so has high prices, then the
potential profit from building new housing is likely to be quite high.
If the market tolerates higher densities, likewise. So without urban
regulations, desirable locations would support higher-density
developments, which would increase land prices and so squeeze out
low-density developments in that location for all but the super-rich. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK, so that's that, but what are the repercussions of this? How does this contribute to shaping cities? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
How zoning and density limits make low-density more affordable and high-density more expensive</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First,
let's use a thought experiment with approximate values. Let's look only
at housing, specifically five types of housing: high-rise apartments,
low-rise apartments, townhouses, small detached houses and big detached
houses...</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-otry-TGR3iE/VXKP_cqwgaI/AAAAAAAAEEc/URRoNjNrQZE/s1600/5Models.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-otry-TGR3iE/VXKP_cqwgaI/AAAAAAAAEEc/URRoNjNrQZE/s640/5Models.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The five housing types of the thought experiment</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now,
all of these housing types generate income, profit
for the developer who builds and sells them. From the FAR (Floor Area
Ratio), I will estimate some relative income per square meter of land
used to build each housing type, knowing that bigger houses with bigger
lots may tend to have more of a profit margin relative to building cost.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So
if the large detached house has a relative profit level of 100 per
square meter of land, the smaller detached house would have a profit
level of 145, the townhouse would have an index of 190, the low-rise
apartments, an index of 250 and the high-rise, an index of 840.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By
that, I mean that a small detached house would yield 145% of the profit
of the large detached house per square meter of the lot area, so 45%
more.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now
let's try a first scenario, where there is no zoning and no planning,
let's assume a uniform value of land everywhere (a simplification that
may be valid for a small neighborhood), a value made by averaging all
the indexes of each allowed building type. I supposed a construction
cost of 1 500$ per square meter for all units, except high-rises that
cost 2 500$ per square meter (divide by 10 for square foot, not exactly
that, but close enough approximation), and I supposed that the unit size
are 200 square meters for the big house, 160 for the small house, 120
for the townhouse, 90 for the low-rise apartments and 70 for the
high-rise apartments.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK,
so enough with the methodology, here are the results, the market price
for each unit type, per unit and per square meter of floor area.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9TqYKI5rDoA/VXNG2SujhiI/AAAAAAAAEEw/HNvW5p8ddQA/s1600/Case1.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="460" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9TqYKI5rDoA/VXNG2SujhiI/AAAAAAAAEEw/HNvW5p8ddQA/s640/Case1.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Cost of each unit, per unit and per square meter of floor area, case 1: without zoning</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So
in this case, the lower density housing types are significantly more
expensive, both per unit and per floor area, largely because they
consume more land per unit and per floor area, which increases their
cost as they pay the same price for land as higher density developments.
This provides a financial incentive for higher densities, people who
desperately want lower densities have to go farther away from desirable
spots to find land that is more affordable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, for <b>CASE 2</b>,
what happens if we implement a simple zoning rule: one zone is limited
to single-family housing (including townhouses, yes, they are
single-family housing), the other is limited to multi-family housing.
Here, land value is affected, in the SFH zone, single-family housing
types no longer have to compete with high-density housing types, which
generate more income per square meter of land, so land in that zone,
deprived of the potential for higher profits, will be worth much less. I
will average the indexes only of all single-family housing types for
that zone. In the other, the opposite occurs, since the land where
multi-family housing is allowed is limited and all the competitors for
that land are all multi-family housing too, land value will likely be
much higher there than it would be otherwise, I will average the indexes of
low-rise and high-rise apartments only. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So
in the end, land in the SFH zone is worth 50% less, but land in the MFH
zone is worth 80% more, which has a great impact on unit prices:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LDrzkMWRBzI/VXNKg9xMeQI/AAAAAAAAEFE/y1-C_Ph8jv8/s1600/Case2.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="458" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LDrzkMWRBzI/VXNKg9xMeQI/AAAAAAAAEFE/y1-C_Ph8jv8/s640/Case2.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Cost of each unit, per unit and per square meter of floor area, case 2:single-family and multi-family separation</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is a boon for low-density housing,
in the first case, the big houses cost 550 000$ to buy because of the
price of land, which they require a lot of, in the second case, deprived
from the competition of multi-family housing, the cost falls to nearly
400 000$. On the other hand, apartments become significantly more
expensive, as they are left to bid up land prices in a limited zone with
other highly profitable developments. Low-rise apartments suffer most,
they cost about 160 000$ in the first case, but nearly 190 000$ in the
second, they even become more expensive than big houses per square meter
of floor area. Note that this experiment supposes that planners provide
enough land for both housing types, if they give one the short end of
the stick by restricting their zone area too much, they may create a
shortage and drive prices up.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let's go on to <span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">CASE 3</span></b><span style="font-size: small;">; in this </span><b> </b></span>case,
we go even further along in the separation of each housing typology.
Each housing type has its own zone. Like in case 2, this favors
lower-density housing types, which are protected from competing for land
with other housing types, so land prices are lowest where only
low-density housing is allowed, and highest where only high-density
housing is allowed.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OP1LGOax8e0/VXNMv2B76II/AAAAAAAAEFQ/m3foXDixSgw/s1600/Case3.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="454" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OP1LGOax8e0/VXNMv2B76II/AAAAAAAAEFQ/m3foXDixSgw/s640/Case3.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Cost of each unit, per unit and per square meter of floor area, case 3:all housing types have their own zone</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this case, the cost per square meter
of each housing type represents the construction cost, not surprisingly.
The big houses are now even more affordable than they used to be at 380
000$, however, smaller houses become more expensive than in the previous scenarios. Low-rise apartments, not having to compete with high-rises anymore,
see their land costs fall significantly, which is a boon to them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In
this case, there is no financial incentive to economize land, because
zones are built to make low-density housing impervious to the waste of
their higher land consumption, since the zoning makes more profitable
and optimal use of that land illegal. The cost of housing reflects only construction cost and unit size, the cost of land per unit is largely equal, no matter how much land each unit consumes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For, <b>CASE 4</b>,
let's look at case 2, but with an added regulation: a minimum lot size
of 800 square meters (a bit over 8 000 square feet, or a fifth of an
acre).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In
this case, I assume that townhouses actually are semi-detached houses,
two on a single 800-square-meter lot. Anyway, here, the minimal lot size
largely impacts single-family housing, making the main cost advantage
of smaller houses on smaller lots moot, further depressing land value.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_SUJK5XTESs/VXNQoekdFFI/AAAAAAAAEFk/Xt-H3BC7Irc/s1600/Cas4.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="456" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_SUJK5XTESs/VXNQoekdFFI/AAAAAAAAEFk/Xt-H3BC7Irc/s640/Cas4.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Cost of each unit, per unit and per square meter of floor area, case 4: Single-family and Multi-family separation plus minimum lot sizes</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The
biggest victim of this regulation financially speaking is the small
detached house, which becomes only marginally less expensive than the
bigger house, and more expensive per square meter of floor area. An
additional effect is a fall in FAR for apartments, who see themselves
forced to have bigger lots, but no more units. This doesn't affect their
costs much, because it represents a fall in potential profit from
development, which reduces the value of land. In the scenario I
conceived, apartment density falls by about 30%.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, a famous regulation for <b>CASE 5</b>, high minimum parking requirements, added to single-family-multi-family segregation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I
will presume only off-street surface parking here, not considering the alternative of on-street parking or of underground parking, which is extremely expensive
(on average 30 000$ per space). This surface parking doesn't affect
either detached house, because they have sufficiently big lots already
to have driveways without increasing their lot area. However, this
forces once again townhouses to become semi-detached houses in order to
accommodate driveways. </div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NTS1djz63M0/VXNYYR7Jt3I/AAAAAAAAEGY/OEECcrjOf24/s1600/SDvsTH.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NTS1djz63M0/VXNYYR7Jt3I/AAAAAAAAEGY/OEECcrjOf24/s640/SDvsTH.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Two townhouses to the left become semi-detached houses to have driveways if they are required to have 2+ off-street parking spaces</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One
impact of this is that the density of low-rise and high-rise apartments
collapses, as they are forced to consume more land to have parking lots
for their residents. As a result, FAR of low-rise apartments fall from
90% to 60% and FAR of high-rise apartments fall from 210% to about 90%.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J1a-mAryzU0/VXNVcW4TG4I/AAAAAAAAEGE/kl4XAJRIL1g/s1600/Case5.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="456" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J1a-mAryzU0/VXNVcW4TG4I/AAAAAAAAEGE/kl4XAJRIL1g/s640/Case5.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Cost of each unit, per unit and per square meter of floor area, case 5: Single-family and Multi-family separation plus minimum parking requirements</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
is not so different from case 2, except that it hides a significant
fall in density, which has little impact on price because even if housing
types consume more land, that land is worth less than it would have
since more profitable alternatives (ie housing with less or no parking) are illegal. In effect, this
regulation may reduce density by 40-50%, and also reduces land prices by
40-50%.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what happens if you presume no zoning, but only minimum parking requirements? That is <b>CASE 6</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is the effect:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jqwudq6xnhs/VXNXkxWBYXI/AAAAAAAAEGQ/k5v6kN9DIjA/s1600/Case6.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="452" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jqwudq6xnhs/VXNXkxWBYXI/AAAAAAAAEGQ/k5v6kN9DIjA/s640/Case6.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Cost of each unit, per unit and per square meter of floor area, case 6: No zoning, but minim parking requirements</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here,
as lower-density uses are no longer protected from higher-density uses,
prices for low-density housing are much higher, however, they are
nowhere near the prices of the first case (without zoning nor
regulation), because the higher-density uses are of significantly lower
densities than in the case without parking requirements. Since profit
per square meter of land is capped, land value is capped... at least
until land shortages force all prices up.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For those who want a real-life example of how minimum parking requirements reduce land value, then look at <a href="http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf">page 10 from the High Cost of Free Parking</a>.
In the case of Oakland, parking requirements reduced land values by 33%
and density by 30% just 2 years after implementation, which seems to
indicate that my little thought experiment isn't so far from the truth.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, to sum up:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lLGVEd88GNk/VXNZ5EZGofI/AAAAAAAAEGo/-K-wKTLIsPU/s1600/AllcasesTotalCost.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="396" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lLGVEd88GNk/VXNZ5EZGofI/AAAAAAAAEGo/-K-wKTLIsPU/s640/AllcasesTotalCost.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Total unit cost per scenario</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sfY1D5k4NOE/VXNZ5HlBF7I/AAAAAAAAEGg/H6ZJPMpfFn4/s1600/AllcasesCostperM2.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="394" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sfY1D5k4NOE/VXNZ5HlBF7I/AAAAAAAAEGg/H6ZJPMpfFn4/s640/AllcasesCostperM2.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Cost per square meter of floor, per scenario</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iS3ZQnQasx0/VXNZ5Df68MI/AAAAAAAAEGk/koEnt7rhEhc/s1600/AllcasesCostvariation.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="394" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iS3ZQnQasx0/VXNZ5Df68MI/AAAAAAAAEGk/koEnt7rhEhc/s640/AllcasesCostvariation.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Cost variation, where case 1 (no zoning, no regulation) = 100%</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So
as you can see, zoning, minimum lot size and minimum parking
regulations all create financial incentives for lower-density housing.
They reduce the land cost of low-density housing by protecting them from
having to compete with higher density uses for the land. On the other
hand, they make high-density housing either more expensive or much less
dense. As a result of these two factors, the average FAR that is built
may go from 80-90% to 30-40%, because cheaper low-density housing
incites people to buy more of them and higher-density housing's density
gets limited. This results in population density falling by 3 or 4
times.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's
important to point out that though density limits make land prices
fall, the price of housing overall remains largely constant because
housing requires more land. So if land is worth half as much but you
need two times more, then it has no effect on cost overall.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I
guess if some want to push people into low-density housing, and don't
care about financially sustainable and walkable communities, it doesn't
matter much, or it may even be a positive effect of modern zoning and
planning regulations. But for urbanists, this is a damning demonstration
of the effect of modern zoning regimes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Note
also that though this effect is probably true, land shortages due to
density limits will rise land prices overall, "a rising tide lifts all
boats". But even if land prices triple or quadruple, zoning will still
have the same effect of keeping land prices for lower-density options
lower and encourage people to buy them This effect may seem paradoxical:
density limits lower the price of land then increase them? But that is
logical, in a situation of "plenty" with a lot of land to develop,
density limits lower the value of land, in situations of shortage, where
developable land is hard to find, the situation is reversed, density
limits aggravate the shortage and so land prices.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That
is why sprawl is dependent on highway construction to open up more
lands for development. Since sprawl quickly fills out available land, if
more land isn't found to develop, it will quickly choke in land
shortages. So the solution of sprawl is to "create" more land, by making
travel faster so as to bring developments closer and make land that
used to be considered too far for development more desirable. This is the ideal of "mobility" of defenders of sprawl.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A couple of other caveat emptor:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1-
I presumed that land value without zoning would average the different
housing types, but speculators may actually hold off of selling their
land until they can get the highest possible return on it (high-rises),
so land prices may be even higher than expected. The solution to that is
to make it more expensive to hold land by implementing land value
taxation. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2-
I presumed land value being uniform over the study area, but in
reality, land values will vary from one neighborhood to the other,
depending on their desirability. So in practice, absence of regulation
may lead to highly variable land value depending on location, with
high-rises going after highly desirable locations and shoving other housing types away. In extreme cases, I guess it could result in some kind
of spontaneous separation of housing typologies.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Commercial areas </h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This
conclusion is valid also for commercial areas, especially regarding
minimum parking requirements. High minimum parking requirements which
result in FAR of commercial areas of being just 10 to 20%, most of the
rest being parking lot, significantly reducing the amount of
revenue-producing area that can be built, since parking, if free,
generates no revenue for the owner (but has expenses linked to it).</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fWag-yZyjNc/VXNf4KJgdjI/AAAAAAAAEHA/5eHZMljJbGQ/s1600/PhoneixCommercial2.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fWag-yZyjNc/VXNf4KJgdjI/AAAAAAAAEHA/5eHZMljJbGQ/s320/PhoneixCommercial2.JPG" width="214" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Commercial area in Phoenix, FAR of about 20%</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kZMHjxBSf1k/VXNgGoqYsBI/AAAAAAAAEHI/JKDsJseVxbg/s1600/ObihiroSupermarket.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="184" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kZMHjxBSf1k/VXNgGoqYsBI/AAAAAAAAEHI/JKDsJseVxbg/s320/ObihiroSupermarket.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Supermarket with parking lot in car-friendly Obihiro in Japan, FAR 50%</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Though
these regulations increase land consumption, they also reduce land
prices. As a result, there is little effect on the overall price of
building commercial areas, however, higher land consumption means a loss
of potentially fertile land, more infrastructure and service costs and
less tax base to pay that infrastructure.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Conclusion</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As
I've repeated a lot, in a money-based economy, prices represent
information regarding resource consumption to guide consumers into wiser
choices for themselves and the community. By protecting lower-density
developments from competing with higher-density developments through
modern zoning and urban regulation, this signal is distorted, prices are
skewed in favor of low-density developments. This leads more people to
choose that type of housing, even when higher density uses aren't
outright banned (as they too often are). Forcing developments to compete
on a level playing field would undeniably result in denser, more
sustainable communities being built.</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-9873537000069943712015-05-28T20:56:00.000-04:002015-05-29T01:51:56.673-04:00On-site vs off-site parking and a Swedish model for suburbs<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
It is often said that one of the great advantages of cars, notably over transit, is that it offers door-to-door travel. You don't need to walk 5 minutes to a bus stop or walk 5 minutes from the bus stop at the end of the trip to your destination, you leave your front door, get in your car and drive to the front door of your destination, easy-peasy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Except, this isn't actually true. Cars don't appear when people leave their home, nor disappear once at destination, they have to be left somewhere, in a parking spot. So, in fact, cars are parking-to-parking, not door-to-door. The only true door-to-door transport mode is walking, even bikes are parking-to-parking (and in some cases, bike parking can be even harder to find than car parking). Taxis I guess could be true door-to-door transport too.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In general in North America, planners and developers focus on providing plenty of parking for each individual building, with parking located near to the front doors, what can be called "on-site parking" (as in, the parking is on the same lot as the building it serves). This is one result of the off-street parking requirements, that has developers building the off-street parking on the same lot as the building, because that is the lot he can build on. Driveways, parking lots, even on-street parking (if not over-used) all serve that purpose of bringing cars very close to doors.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qo3GqMA5Ln4/VV7J_ghsjaI/AAAAAAAAD-I/j6CckU1yh2A/s1600/Driveways%252BOSP.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="314" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qo3GqMA5Ln4/VV7J_ghsjaI/AAAAAAAAD-I/j6CckU1yh2A/s640/Driveways%252BOSP.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Driveways and abundant on-street parking help bring parking spots as close as possible to housing</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OACGKWf0Ph4/VV7KjVins7I/AAAAAAAAD-Q/96FuS0U0hVI/s1600/PhoenixMFhousing.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="430" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OACGKWf0Ph4/VV7KjVins7I/AAAAAAAAD-Q/96FuS0U0hVI/s640/PhoenixMFhousing.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Low-rise multi-family housing surrounded by parking</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
Sometimes, the focus on convenient parking location demonstrates little short of contempt for non-drivers:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h10tcW9I3LM/VV7K1uE696I/AAAAAAAAD-Y/0Rynf50eHs4/s1600/PhoenixStripMallD%25C3%25A9crit.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="368" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h10tcW9I3LM/VV7K1uE696I/AAAAAAAAD-Y/0Rynf50eHs4/s640/PhoenixStripMallD%25C3%25A9crit.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Typical North American strip mall, 1-2 minute walking distance from bu stop located right in front of it, imposes detours to residents who live behind the mall, all to have a huge parking lot built right next to the doors of the stores, to minimize walking distance for drivers</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SKrfm4h8PDM/VV7LSHRtq2I/AAAAAAAAD-g/RDlbXzp-XQI/s1600/PhoenixMall.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="304" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SKrfm4h8PDM/VV7LSHRtq2I/AAAAAAAAD-g/RDlbXzp-XQI/s640/PhoenixMall.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Typical North American mall, surrounded by acres of parking</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
The reason why I bring this up is that the convenience of parking can have a significant impact on choosing to walk or drive for short trips. When I say that travel time is the dominant factor in mode selection, this is the time door-to-door, not just in movement inside a vehicle, time taken to get to and from the vehicle may affect the decision of people to use it or not. So the closer the parking, the more favored cars will be as a form of transport. There may also be some other issues, like manual garage doors which take some time to open and close before leaving, which is why it's so frequent for the garage to be rarely used for parking by people who make frequent use of their cars.<br />
<br />
All of this means that one way to discourage using cars is simply to make it less convenient to use them by placing parking locations farther from housing and destinations, which goes against the current regulatory regime that insists on on-site parking.<br />
<br />
<h3>
A theoretical demonstration</h3>
So how much impact does parking location convenience has?<br />
<br />
Well, first, let's take a typical case of on-site parking with every house having a parking on the lot, in the form of a driveway. Houses are on side streets, so drivers go down to the arterial road then drive to the destination, either an office, factory or a store, which also has parking on-site. Schematically, this is what it looks like:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8dOaTA_FRy4/VWaNWQVmMFI/AAAAAAAAD-0/MyTf74ZsgWI/s1600/Case1.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8dOaTA_FRy4/VWaNWQVmMFI/AAAAAAAAD-0/MyTf74ZsgWI/s640/Case1.PNG" width="464" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>In yellow, the trip using cars, in blue, the trip using transit, dotted sections are done on foot, bus stops are the blue dots</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, in this case, the time wasted on car trips is minimized, with parking very near doors of homes and destinations. All in all, car trips include only 1 or 2 minutes of walking. Meanwhile, walking to the bus stop may take 3 to 5 minutes (an optimistic figure), waiting at the stop can also take 3 to 5 minutes (supposing the transit user knows the schedule and goes there just on time), and the bus stop at destination is still far from the door of the destination, so that's another 2 to 3 minutes. All in all, the transit trip includes around 10 minutes of walking and waiting, and that's if there is no transfer.<br />
<br />
So, if we do a mode race to see how much time it takes to reach the destination on foot, on a bike, on a car or on a bus, we'd get something like this:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g_0uHo4sR3o/VWaUG5do4NI/AAAAAAAAD_U/IauUTZz0wVg/s1600/ModeRaceCase1.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="482" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g_0uHo4sR3o/VWaUG5do4NI/AAAAAAAAD_U/IauUTZz0wVg/s640/ModeRaceCase1.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Mode race of the case with on-site parking, cars have a massive advantage</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In this case, a 5-km trip (roughly 3 miles) would take nearly 25 minutes on transit, but only 10 minutes in a car. Cars start with a 10-minute advantage over transit and only increase that advantage over longer trips thanks to their higher speed.<br />
<br />
Now let's take the exact opposite case, where both residential and commercial/office parking are off-site. In this case, car drivers have to walk 2-3 minutes to their car from their home and 2-3 minutes from the parking to their destination. Bus riders still have to walk the same distance to their stop, but as there is no parking in front of the destination, they will save quite some time walking to their destination from the bus stop at which they alight.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DYhr1-ELwYg/VWaXAQqusbI/AAAAAAAAD_o/VHJrQ-qEWLU/s1600/Case2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DYhr1-ELwYg/VWaXAQqusbI/AAAAAAAAD_o/VHJrQ-qEWLU/s640/Case2.PNG" width="474" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Schematic representation of the case with off-site residential and destination parking, car drivers have to walk much more in this case, even more than transit users</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yh6vCkW0u9w/VWaW0hYm7_I/AAAAAAAAD_g/czE9WKWiiRg/s1600/ModeRaceCase2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="486" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yh6vCkW0u9w/VWaW0hYm7_I/AAAAAAAAD_g/czE9WKWiiRg/s640/ModeRaceCase2.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Trip distance vs time for the off-site parking example, here, cars lose most of their advantage for shorter trips</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In this case, the same 5-km trip as before would take about 16 minutes in a car and 21 minutes on transit. The difference is much reduced and allows transit to be much more competitive. Bikes also shine here, as bikes are easily portable and offer something much closer to a door-to-door trip.<br />
<br />
Finally, there is the on-street parking scenario, which is in the middle. If there is plenty of parking spots on the street, the results are very close to the first case with on-site parking. If there is a shortage of parking spots, then people may need to walk a bit, approximating the off-site parking example. In both cases, if parking is on-street, then destinations tend to be built next to the sidewalk, reducing walking distances for transit users.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Swedish model</h3>
OK, so what got me thinking about this is exploring Swedish cities through Google Maps, trying to get a sense of their organization. Many neighborhoods of Swedish cities have a particular form. These cities have very strong planning, and the Swedes often live in multi-family housing, 40% of them do, many of them inside apartments built by a government program, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme">Million program</a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null">me</a>, under which the government motivated the construction of one million dwelling units in 10 years, a massive undertaking in a country of 8 million people.<br />
<br />
Anyway, many multi-family neighborhoods in Sweden have a peculiar form in modern developments, take a look at this area from Vaxjo:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8YldmhoB8uM/VWalm2efgaI/AAAAAAAAD_4/FuX9yLiAAgY/s1600/Vaxjo1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="348" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8YldmhoB8uM/VWalm2efgaI/AAAAAAAAD_4/FuX9yLiAAgY/s640/Vaxjo1.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Residential area in Vaxjo, Sweden</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Let me identify the parts of that area:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zzHEOmlUwOU/VWalwWAuE5I/AAAAAAAAEAA/Y8IrbkLxq8I/s1600/Vaxjo2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="532" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zzHEOmlUwOU/VWalwWAuE5I/AAAAAAAAEAA/Y8IrbkLxq8I/s640/Vaxjo2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Distinct subsections of the neighborhood</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
What we have here is a strictly segregated approach, with a vast residential area without streets for vehicles, where buildings are linked by footpaths and bike paths. The road connecting this development to the rest of the city only runs on the periphery, and between the road and the residential area: parking lots. That way, cars are strictly kept out of residential areas where people walk and bike, total separation between motorized and non-motorized transport. It also means that cars are left near the road, which can be nearly 200 meters away on foot (700 feet)... right next to the bus stops. This also leaves plenty of trees and greenery in the residential area. Make no mistake, this isn't really urban, this is clearly a suburban area, but one where taking transit is not penalized versus using a car.<br />
<br />
Technically, I guess the parking is still on-site. as it seems clear this whole area is one big development project, but for all practical purposes, the parking is effectively off-site due to its distance from residential areas.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KD3rv_ZBHzY/VWanUv6zCEI/AAAAAAAAEAM/1XH9uIJZ8_A/s1600/Vaxjo3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="288" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KD3rv_ZBHzY/VWanUv6zCEI/AAAAAAAAEAM/1XH9uIJZ8_A/s640/Vaxjo3.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uLTpt8C3o18/VWanUkiTezI/AAAAAAAAEAU/27T_FhL1kA4/s1600/Vaxjo4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uLTpt8C3o18/VWanUkiTezI/AAAAAAAAEAU/27T_FhL1kA4/s640/Vaxjo4.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-M3pq5Mi-IJE/VWanU3txVYI/AAAAAAAAEAQ/BDKKd9SXNhA/s1600/Vaxjo5.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="278" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-M3pq5Mi-IJE/VWanU3txVYI/AAAAAAAAEAQ/BDKKd9SXNhA/s640/Vaxjo5.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Here is a particularly striking example (at least, from the sky), from Norkoping, a concentric neighborhood with parking on the outside ring, then two rings of apartment blocs, all surrounding a park:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YcS2lAeiJlc/VWa6fR4ebBI/AAAAAAAAEDc/Uw9JWF5t9cs/s1600/NorkopingConcentric.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="524" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YcS2lAeiJlc/VWa6fR4ebBI/AAAAAAAAEDc/Uw9JWF5t9cs/s640/NorkopingConcentric.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Concentric neighborhood in Norkoping</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Here is another example in Karlstad:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PIEthgzJyBc/VWapS-hoVqI/AAAAAAAAEAo/y-7VqHokV50/s1600/Carlstad.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="416" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PIEthgzJyBc/VWapS-hoVqI/AAAAAAAAEAo/y-7VqHokV50/s640/Carlstad.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Suburban neighborhood in Karlstad, Sweden, with the neighborhood's commercial area identified, as well as the main footpath/bike path</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This particular instance is interesting because there are very few roads for cars through this area, in fact, using Google Maps to give me walking and driving trips from one apartment bloc to the commercial area yielded me the following:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eWfmy7JoiRU/VWapy7z-3CI/AAAAAAAAEAw/GsT_Y-aW37U/s1600/CarlstadWalk.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="606" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eWfmy7JoiRU/VWapy7z-3CI/AAAAAAAAEAw/GsT_Y-aW37U/s640/CarlstadWalk.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Walking trip from an apartment bloc to the neighborhood commercial sector, time of trip: 4 or 5 minutes</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ftYTNqzkEZQ/VWaqAn7izgI/AAAAAAAAEA4/LxB67pfAKr4/s1600/CarlstadCar.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="578" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ftYTNqzkEZQ/VWaqAn7izgI/AAAAAAAAEA4/LxB67pfAKr4/s640/CarlstadCar.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>And here is the directions for the shortest car trip, note the time: 5 minutes, about the same as walking, so you would save no time by driving instead of walking</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Another advantage of this design is that since there is only one main road, it concentrates transit users on one bus route that travels along that road. As a result, the bus line is frequent, data available online shows that the bus that does the loop actually has an headway of 10 minutes off-peak, in a city with a population of 87 000 people.<br />
<br />
This total separation of motorized vehicles from pedestrians and cyclists may also be partly responsible for Sweden's excellent traffic safety results. Indeed, Sweden is in the Top 5 safest countries on Earth both by traffic deaths per 100 000 people and by 100 000 cars.<br />
<br />
Again, make no mistake, this is a suburban area, and one that has strict use separation as commercial uses are set apart from residential areas, but a suburban area that seems to focus more on walking, biking and transit than on cars. Not to say that Swedish cities are only made of such neighborhoods, not at all. They have plenty of traditional Euro-blocs in older areas and single-family areas with driveways in front of every house:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TrhAfiO5_1s/VWatRofI5sI/AAAAAAAAEBE/uFDx1Andk4Q/s1600/StockholmSF.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="332" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TrhAfiO5_1s/VWatRofI5sI/AAAAAAAAEBE/uFDx1Andk4Q/s640/StockholmSF.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Single-family houses in Stockholm</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In some instances, they even use elevated parking structures on the periphery of residential areas:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Yli6-0idw3A/VWauc6mBHaI/AAAAAAAAEBQ/qJkGbxbvxJw/s1600/Stockholm2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="410" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Yli6-0idw3A/VWauc6mBHaI/AAAAAAAAEBQ/qJkGbxbvxJw/s640/Stockholm2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Elevated parking structure in the center of the image, to absorb the parking demand for the high-density housing without overwhelming the residential area with cars, in Stockholm</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The use of elevated structures is particularly interesting, because it is one way to really build a lot of parking on a very small lot, without breaking the bank. It can serve the purpose of hiding cars from view and preserving more of the lots for pedestrian-friendly amenities or design.<br />
<br />
This type of neighborhood design is more typical of multi-family housing, but some single-family housing also use parking lots and garages put at the periphery, leaving the inside of the neighborhood free from cars:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h9XXaNdiGiI/VWa3OPJjRZI/AAAAAAAAECs/-6ciDI9_3JA/s1600/LundSky.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="410" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h9XXaNdiGiI/VWa3OPJjRZI/AAAAAAAAECs/-6ciDI9_3JA/s640/LundSky.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Single-family area with parking lots put at the periphery, in Lund</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8vxPL5FsnTg/VWa3YaQtP4I/AAAAAAAAEC0/ITDiCbblM6c/s1600/LundPkg.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="358" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8vxPL5FsnTg/VWa3YaQtP4I/AAAAAAAAEC0/ITDiCbblM6c/s640/LundPkg.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Image of one of the parking lots, in fact, parking garages, that would typically be built adjacent to houses but that are instead grouped in the same location</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AyxuscbZmu8/VWa3mb-yu1I/AAAAAAAAEC8/FAXjJohP2yQ/s1600/Lund1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="352" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AyxuscbZmu8/VWa3mb-yu1I/AAAAAAAAEC8/FAXjJohP2yQ/s640/Lund1.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LWsEWjt04mo/VWa3mibc2TI/AAAAAAAAEDA/jWcRaUvpA3Q/s1600/Lund2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="378" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LWsEWjt04mo/VWa3mibc2TI/AAAAAAAAEDA/jWcRaUvpA3Q/s640/Lund2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d0o3QzkUhCU/VWa3mtNF88I/AAAAAAAAEDI/6xDNU-od5pw/s1600/Lund3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="368" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d0o3QzkUhCU/VWa3mtNF88I/AAAAAAAAEDI/6xDNU-od5pw/s640/Lund3.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Images of the houses with footpaths separating the houses</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Of course, that design of self-contained neighborhoods with limited roads is great for transit, but it offers relatively poor connections between neighborhoods for pedestrians, often with paths that are not in view of residential areas. It also lacks mixing of uses as commercial areas tend to be put in a different location from residential. Still, Swedish cities do a lot of effort to build bike networks, often offering faster, more direct paths to cyclists than cars. As a result, despite the quantity of greenery of Swedish cities, bike and transit mode shares are very high (bikes more for smaller cities, transit for bigger cities). All data here from <a href="http://www.epomm.eu/tems/">TEMS</a>.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bpCZn2vJueU/VWazSvWouFI/AAAAAAAAEBs/o0VlSKQR9ho/s1600/MSStockholm.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bpCZn2vJueU/VWazSvWouFI/AAAAAAAAEBs/o0VlSKQR9ho/s1600/MSStockholm.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Mode share in Stocckholm, the biggest city of Sweden (metro population of 2 millions), extremely high public transit usage, relatively low active mode shares</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AyIc3FEC5V4/VWazRr5pJGI/AAAAAAAAEBc/wOpBNeOA38A/s1600/MS-Gotenborg.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AyIc3FEC5V4/VWazRr5pJGI/AAAAAAAAEBc/wOpBNeOA38A/s1600/MS-Gotenborg.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Mode share in Gothenburg, Sweden's second largest city (about 500 000 people)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IOhGPXbhhqY/VWazRuPKptI/AAAAAAAAEBg/FmEqfYMhCBY/s1600/MS-Linkoping.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IOhGPXbhhqY/VWazRuPKptI/AAAAAAAAEBg/FmEqfYMhCBY/s1600/MS-Linkoping.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Mode share for Linkoping, a city of 140 000, there we see bikes being much more used, with still a significant amount of public transit use</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2Z7GOi2QSj0/VWazRtGzMcI/AAAAAAAAECQ/vywZxcoNXeI/s1600/MS-Lund.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2Z7GOi2QSj0/VWazRtGzMcI/AAAAAAAAECQ/vywZxcoNXeI/s1600/MS-Lund.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Mode share for Lund, population of about 100 000. To compare, transit mode share in Toronto and Montréal is about 20%, so 16% in a 100 000-people city is quite high</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5oi4Lcw0Ehk/VWazSWpLDaI/AAAAAAAAEBo/m8YumNKTkzk/s1600/MS-Uppsala.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5oi4Lcw0Ehk/VWazSWpLDaI/AAAAAAAAEBo/m8YumNKTkzk/s1600/MS-Uppsala.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i>Mode share for Uppsala, pop. 140 000</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
One thing interesting here is that no matter whether these are big or small cities, car mode share is always between 45 and 55%. This contradicts the typical belief in North America that only large cities can be walkable or can have decent transit, and that it's "normal" that smaller cities be car-dependent. Smaller cities can also favor sustainable developments, but instead of subways, this takes the form of <a href="http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-quality-bus.html">quality bus</a> services (or even tramways/LRT in some instances), bike paths and walkable proximities.<br />
<br />
I'm not so keen on the strongly planned cities of Sweden, but their aesthetics may be more in sync with North Americans used to lots of greenery. Enclosure may be favored in urbanism, but not everyone likes it. Still, they are pretty successful at offering modal choice to people and at favoring all modes of transport, save for cars. The biggest flaw of this approach is inflexibility, when roads and infrastructure are built only for a certain type of development, making the area evolve over time is quite difficult.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The advantages of off-site parking</h3>
I think this model showcases how useful off-site parking lots can be, especially for a transition from suburbs to more sustainable, walkable cities. One of the big problems of density in suburban areas is that it results in cars taking over the public sphere entirely, being everywhere. The Swedish approach of putting cars in their own little zone apart from residential areas can help make it more palatable to live in an higher density area in transition from car-dependence to multi-modality, where cars will still be very present. Like a shameful disease, cars are best kept out of view of the community, allowing for more human-friendly design to dominate the public realm. The inconvenience of the parking location also encourages other modes of transport by reducing the time advantage of cars.<br />
<br />
Off-site parking could also have an additional advantage of being possibly adaptive to demand rather than simply being regulatory. When parking is required on-site, since unused spaces on one lot cannot be used by residents of another, every lot is obliged to provide enough parking for its residents' highest possible parking demand. Off-site parking could allow for parking spots to be attributed to those who need them, so less of them would be needed, because residents not using their "allotment" could simply sell the spaces or stop renting them, allowing someone else to use that space. If parking spaces get rare, a new parking lot could be built. So off-site parking lots could theoretically do away with the need of minimum parking requirements.<br />
<br />
For example, let's take the typical example of houses which regulation says needs to have 2 parking spots, built on-site. The regulation being what it is, the parking spots are privately owned by whoever owns the housing, and the price for the parking is bundled with the house's price. But since the regulation is there to make sure that enough parking is provided, in fact, it may well be that a significant amount of parking is not actually regularly occupied by a car.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OJaJZxddj2E/VWetzyzkM_I/AAAAAAAAEDw/Ni7Qta7i9X0/s1600/OnSiteMinPKG.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="404" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OJaJZxddj2E/VWetzyzkM_I/AAAAAAAAEDw/Ni7Qta7i9X0/s640/OnSiteMinPKG.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Schematic example of houses with on-site parking spots, in light blue, ones not regularly used by vehicles, in dark, spaces that are regularly used</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Now, in this situation, with 14 units and 28 parking spots, fully 10 parking spots are unused, but they cannot be used by others because they are privately owned. So even if you want to add other units, you cannot tap into the unused parking spots to avoid having to fulfill the parking requirements, because these parking spots are off-limit.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, if you have another approach, where the 28 parking spots have been put in one parking lot, with homeowners having the choice to separately buy parking spots, then you have the following:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cb02WardOBI/VWevOhr_kWI/AAAAAAAAED4/ED3MOfFmgGo/s1600/OffSiteMinPKG.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="322" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cb02WardOBI/VWevOhr_kWI/AAAAAAAAED4/ED3MOfFmgGo/s640/OffSiteMinPKG.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Schematic example of houses with off-site parking spots</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In this case, because the 10 unused spots are still available for purchase, you could theoretically allow 5 new houses to be built without adding additional parking, because there still is 2 free parking spots for each of these newly built houses. And since people have to pay for their parking separately, it makes it more worthwhile to opt out of having a car. If you're flexible enough, you could also allow for parking lots to be sold to be developed if they're not used enough, which would make cars have to compete with housing for the land.<br />
<br />
To be fair, this can also be done with on-street parking, but I think I've made it clear that I dislike that solution, as cars parked on a street claim it for cars and clutter up urban areas. As the city is typically responsible for building and maintaining streets, reliance on on-street parking also makes public authorities responsible for providing parking for residents, opening the door to all sorts of conflicts as the city is then forced to manage parking and held accountable if there are parking problems. I find it much better to leave parking in the hands of private residents and businesses, so that the costs can be borne by those who use it, not by the community at large.<br />
<br />
So anyway, the more I think about it, the more I think this is a way of tackling parking that could be promising. This is also valid for commercial parking lots. This approach is scalable, it could work in suburbs, where low land prices and density could at first lead to abundant, affordable parking, but also allow for a gradual reduction of the amount of parking as land prices increase due to development and better public transit options slowly make car ownership less important. In other words, I think it could be a complementary approach to incremental developments.</div>
</div>
simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.com6