Archive for “back to the center”

New styles of work and older urban designs

Penelope Trunk recently provided seven predictions on the future of work. Many will require changes to how people live in cities.  Old style sprawl will not allow for new styles of working.   Here I’ll address her first two predictions:

The end of gender disparity
Pay is equal for men and women until there are kids. This inequality will change when Generation Y starts having kids because the men are committed to being equal partners in child rearing. We see already that among Generation X men and women are willing to give up pay and prestige in order to get time with their families. Generation Y’s demographic power will provide critical mass for big change.

The end of the stay-at-home parent
Women have already widely rejected the idea of sacrificing their time with children to a relentless, high-powered, long-houred job, and men are following suit. Women have also found that staying at home with kids all day is boring. Institutions are responding – finally — to these trends. Parents will choose some form of shared care. Each parent will work part-time and take care of kids part time.

These predictions and observations will require many families to abandon suburban life for a more urban existence. The suburbs evolved when one parent working outside the home was the norm. The other parent could then dedicate herself (or occasionally “himself) to getting the kids to schools and other activities, as well as looking after them at home. If the working parent had to commute 60 minutes each way, that was considered acceptable to have a large back yard and a white picket fence.

In order for both parents to share care and have careers, they’ll need to live in proximity to their employer or clients (for the self employed). Although the internet and mobile technology allows for some types of work to be done anywhere, face to face communication is usually essential some of the time. It builds trust, is part of networking, and is required at least occasionally for effective collaboration.

Having a home in a distant suburb makes it harder for two parents to blend work and family life. If you live 10 minutes from downtown (or a major employment area) — or live downtown — it’s easier to get away for a one hour meeting, which will only cost you 1 hour 20 minutes of time. If you live 60 minutes from downtown, a one hour meeting will cost you 3 hours, two of which will be fairly unproductive if you’re driving in traffic.

For those who need to make regular appearances at an “office” (or the equivalent there of), living close to work and the kids schools means that you can zip home in a few minutes if there is a problem or dash to the school to attend a concert for an hour. It also means less time wasted commuting and therefore more time with your kids. Plus, when it comes to negotiating flexibility — such as an option to work from home occasionally, or to work in the evening in return for having a shorter day at the office — it’s more workable (and an easier sell to employers) if you can get back quickly in an emergency.

So, the future of work and the future of cities are interconnected. Of course, living in higher density areas will usually mean living in a smaller place — maybe a condo or townhouse and playing at the park rather than in a big backyard.

Ending an era and new beginnings

The rapid revitalization of downtowns and urban cores has driven up demand for housing in many North American (and especially Canadian) cities, raising property values and pushing some uses out. New townhouse and condominium developments often require long-standing businesses to close – as can new retail projects to serve the growing population.

Toronto Star columnist Tony Wong wrote a great piece a couple weeks ago about what is being lost.

The last customer in Tony Pontieri’s neighbourhood garage shop drove a black Honda Civic.

She had wanted a front licence plate put on her car, for which the dealer wanted to charge her an hourly rate. Pontieri did it free.

“I’m going to really miss you,” she told Pontieri, 49.

So will a lot of other customers. Independent garages in downtown Toronto are a rarity, and now one of the city’s oldest establishments is selling out for an undisclosed sum.

“It’s going to be tough leaving. I’ll really miss the customers,” said Pontieri, in shorts and a T-shirt, packing a skid as he prepared to move out by Monday. “This place is as old as I am.”

The Pontieri story is a familiar one. Toronto’s real estate boom has meant older, established businesses are cashing out to new development. Earlier this year, the iconic Addison on Bay Cadillac dealership closed its doors to make way for a condo.

The area has changed considerably from the time father Frank Pontieri opened the shop in 1958. “There were train tracks and hobos living in abandoned trains. Now I’m surrounded by million-dollar condos.”

Even the St. Lawrence Farmers’ Market next door has gone upscale. A sign outside advertises Organic Gourmet Tofu.

Pontieri figures at least half a dozen local garages have ceased to exist over the past decade.

Increasing population density in the city is generally a good thing for decreasing environmental impact and improving urban livability. But there is a cost.

Cities and spiritual needs

Centuries ago, churches, temples, mosques or other spiritual building anchored a city. For example, when the Spaniards founded cities and towns in the new world, they built a large church at the centre (along with a public plaza and a government building). Around the world people traveled to cities near and far in order to worship, as well as potentially to buy or sell in a market.

Today, visiting a religious edifice is not as likely to be the reason people visit or move to a city. Nevertheless, it may be that cities do still fulfill spiritual needs, but ones not attached to organized religion. At least, this is the suggestion in an Economist article from May 2007.

The article offers the hypothesis that cities today offer shrines to other cultural needs or passions that people have — and not all people will be attracted to the same urban places, even if they are attracted to the same city:

  • Shopping — consumer culture — is something that large cities offer in a much more grand style than smaller towns.
  • Special cultural opportunities are also offered in particular cities — such as unique museums (or museum collections), opera houses, and theater.
  • Finally, professional sporting events and venues offer a further “spiritual” option in cities. Based on the ways some sports fans worship their teams and heroes, the religious comparison seems appropriate.

Just as religious shrines used to form part of the city’s central core, today sports complexes, fashion forward retail streets, and cultural opportunities are flourishing downtown. Indeed, city planners today are often advocating building these venues downtown if they are not already there — fulfilling the new spiritual needs of residents.

Kids in Cities Learning Network (CEOS for Cities)

CEOs for cities has launched the Kids in Cities Learning Network. Their goal is to understand the reasons why many families choose the suburbs and as important, the ways in which other families are finding the city to be the perfect place to raise children:

To get answers, we turned to the Institute of Design. We asked teams of designers there to help us develop a deep understanding of the market and how they might be moved to alter their behavior.

Their approach was to study pioneering urban parents. Rather than ask people what they might do in hypothetical situations, they studied what people choosing to raise their children in cities are actually doing. They also interviewed urban and suburban “discontents” — parents not completely satisfied with their current situations.

What they found is that the top concerns of parents about city living are safety, space and schools. But they found that satisfied urban parents had ways to address each of these concerns. The very nature of the city alleviated their safety concerns with its density and “eyes on the street.” They supplemented their lack of private space by using the city’s public spaces, such as parks and sidewalks. And they augmented their children’s education with the city’s diversity and cultural and other assets.

For pioneering city parents — and we found many of them — cities are the perfect place to raise children.

Preliminary findings as well as the framework for further study have been published.  It’s worth a read.  CEOS for Cities will now be hosting learning forums where other cities can learn from the parents and families — who have chosen the city — and who participated in the report.

I’ve only had an opportunity to skim the report.  What intrigues me are the numerous ways that urban parents interacted with their children and the city.  “There’s so much to do” said many people, and often within walking distance or a short transit ride.  Families used public spaces together — whether the park, a museum, planetarium, aquarium, the sidewalks, or the commercial community (store and cafe owners who knew the family).

In their lessons for cities generally, one conclusion is that more family-oriented spaces — as well as general public ones — would then, theoretically, increase the appeal of raising kids in dense urban areas.

Families, City Living, and Economic Diversity

What do you need to build a community?  Do you need dozens of like-minded people from the same socio-economic background, living in similar houses, doing similar jobs, with kids who do the same activities?

Or, can you build a strong community with people from a variety of backgrounds, who have different life experiences, living in different types of homes, with a variety of personal interests?

Last week Richard Florida observed that in his new Toronto neighbourhood there were a lot of families choosing urban living over the suburbs, and from a variety of backgrounds it would appear based on the range of housing choices.  He was challenging an assumption in the Denver Post that somehow having children was incompatible with living in a dense, amenity-rich urban setting. 

This led me to think about what makes some dense urban communities work — and a strong community is a good reason to stay and raise a family. 

Looking around my own (dense, urban) community, I notice that my neighbors include several drywallers and construction workers, at least two lawyers, a graphic designer (now free lance, formerly senior at Electronic Arts), several teachers, a genetics researcher, people who work in finance, people who write for semi-communist newspapers, professional photographers, energy traders, marketing specialists, and the owners of local businesses: the gym two blocks away is owned and operated by a couple living 6 houses up the street. 

Some people rent, some people own.  Some owners bought in before housing prices doubled or tripled (as has happened since 2001), some bought in recently.  Some occupy an entire house, but most people whether they own or rent only occupy a portion of the house.  Many people have children.

 And spawning out from my immediate area, the same patterns of residents repeats itself — people from a wide variety of backgrounds.  What’s really intriguing is how much most people in the neighborhood support each other.

Neighbors hire each other, or swap favors.  Need your wall patched, your drywaller neighbor can do it.  Need a will, the lawyer down the street will give you a discount.  Want some great photos taken of your kids or family, ask a local photographer.   In a campaign to get a local park renovated, a professional graphic designer created some post cards and images so amusing, ironic and memorable the campaign leader received a call from the Mayor thanking us for brightening his day.

The community also supports the local businesses.  In a 10 block retail strip that provides the focal point for the neighborhood, there are only two or three chain retailers (Starbucks, of course, and outlets of two local chains).  Most other businesses are run by people in the community — the hardware store, the small grocery stores, the cafes and restaurants, and the ecclectic range of funky retail shops (shoe stores, clothes, childrens).  Most people shop local – again supporting the community.

Last year I addressed the question of whether gentrification reduces economic diversity (not racial…economic), and tentatively concluded that no it doesn’t.  In the subsequent discussion with others, I started to conclude that during the process of gentrification, economic diversity is not diminished, but perhaps that could be the end result if the neighbourhood becomes so expensive that only families with >$150K/year in income could consider buying there.

My neighborhood is definitely undergoing gentrificaiton.  But it’s this dyanmic time when economic diversity can contribute to creating an intriguing community.  Yes there are tensions — every community has that — but that’s also important.  People need something to talk about. 

Perhaps a true community is necessarily dynamic and not static — undergoing some sort of gentrification or other change process.  That’s what makes it interesting. 

People who live in suburban sprawl or condo sprawl often say they don’t know their neighbors.  Maybe because everyone is too much alike, there is no reason to interact.

Protecting employment lands

Most cities with thriving economies and growing populations struggle to balance land use requirements. Cities need land for parks and public spaces, territory for housing, space for retail use, real estate for office buildings, and vast tracts for manufacturing and warehousing. Urban areas also need to set aside land for infrastructure — everything from roads to rapid transit to schools and airports.

In a thriving city, proponents of any of these uses typically lobby for more real estate.

Preserving employment lands has become a critical issue for many cities, especially those with finite land options. Core cities within a larger sprawling area — such as Toronto — can face similar problems to larger metro areas with geographic constraints such as Vancouver or San Diego.

The Toronto Star today ran a good editorial on the subject of threatened employment lands. Back-to-downtown strategies have succeeded, creating a growing market for residential condominums. Suddenly downtown and inner city industrial and commercial land becomes more valuable for condominium redevelopment.

This has already happened in Vancouver resulting in a city-council moratorium on residential development in the downtown area until a full land use plan can be re-drawn.

Another threat not mentioned in the Toronto Star article is that residents of cities and neighbourhoods are now often joining together to fight some of these necessary urban uses — to fight employment use of lands.

For example, in the Vancouver suburb of Delta, which has one of the larger container ports on the West Coast, many residents are fighting anciliary uses like warehouse-distribution and transloading containers (unloading and repacking shipping containers).

Elsewhere residents moving into a busy restaurant and pub district have been known to ask for restrictions on restaurant hours to limit noise (such that the city now has a zoning designation called “residential in a noisy area” that requires buyers of new homes to acknowledge this fact).

Successful cities in the 21st century will need every type of land use — and city planners, politicians and residents will need to find balance and compromise. Because people vote and shipping containers, warehouse space, and office towers do not, politicians often listen to the short-sighted concerns of residents over the economic needs of a city.

The cities to watch in the 21st century will be those with educated electorates and skilled planners and politicans who can successfully find ways to balance the needs of residents to great public amenities and neighbourhoods, while preserving employment lands. It won’t be easy.

Finding Community in Condo Living

At the Zillow blog there is a great story about an empty-nester couple’s decision to downsize from a 3,200 square foot home to a 1,200 square foot condominium in downtown Seattle. (Hat tip : Creativity Exchange)

As I posted before, there is a strong urban trend of “Living Large by Living Small.” Getting rid of many household maintenance chores as well as the daily commute from the suburbs affords more time for personal enjoyment and leisure pursuits.

Relevant to the recent ecological discussion, the unidentified couple in the Zillow story discusses how by getting rid of their automobiles, and commuting costs altogether, they have enough extra spending money to dine out 85% of the time.

From their description, departing the suburbs brought a huge increase in quality of life.

Here’s more examples. Because they walk everywhere and dine out so much, they know the neighbors and the local merchants and restaurateurs well. Restaurant owners would come and chat with them, especially if they haven’t been in for a while, recognizing them as regulars. The local video store owner sets aside movies for them that he believes they’ll enjoy.

Although we live in a duplex and not a condo, my husband and I have found the same thing in our pedestrian-oriented, restaurant and cafe based neighborhood: the local store owners and managers recognize us, say hello, give us great deals, even Christmas presents. If we haven’t been in for a while, they ask how we’ve been. Feeling a part of the commercial scene is an added bonus of living in a high density area.

New Year Thoughts – Part II: Trend toward shrinking homes?

For much of the twentieth century, homes in North America steadily increased in size. This occurred simultaneous with urban sprawl, as the automobile and freeway investments allowed increasing numbers of families to afford ever larger homes.

2006 brought increasing evidence that this trend is reversing. Many individuals and families are choosing smaller homes. Moreover, a wider variety of housing choices are available and being selected by people at all income levels.

There are a variety of reasons for this. The biggest is that urban sprawl in many cities has reached its limit. While some cities have geographical constraints limiting sprawl, others have now reached other limitations including psychological. There are limits to how far people will commute (and with most urban areas heavily reliant on automobile transport, there are definite limits to freeway capacity in a region).

Many people are asking themselves if the larger house in a suburb is worth it if they spend 2-3 hours per day commuting. Some working parents might only see their children at bedtime and weekends with this type of schedule. For those without children, or empty nesters, such a commute takes time away from other pursuits. Thus, we have a psychological constraint — or “practical constraint” — on urban expansion.

Another reason for people in cities choosing smaller homes: the lifestyle question. While some individuals and families are passionate about gardening and maintaining the interior and exterior of a home — others would rather be enjoying other pursuits. Therefore, townhouses and condominiums are attractive options.

Related, people are placing increased value on their time. In deciding where to purchase or rent a home, individuals and families look at commuting time to work, and community time to favourite leisure activities (whether restaurants to visit with friends or sporting arenas or the beach).

North American culture of the 21st century is becoming more individualistic, or at least generation x and the milennials are feeling like they don’t need to aspire to own the “white picket fence dream.” ANd many won’t chose that if it means giving up other aspects of their lives, such as recreation or time with friends. Very well-off families are choosing to raise children in downtown condominiums. One former-colleague paid nearly $1 Million for his spatious 3 bedroom condominium with large outdoor patio. He loves being able to walk to work. His wife loves all the nearby amenities ranging from quality food stores to parks and recreation areas for kids.

CEOs for Cities recently commented on a New York Times article about the growing number of upper-middle class families choosing to live in dense areas of New York City, rather than spatious homes elsewhere.

Downtown revitalization and inner city neighbourhood gentrification are part of this trend toward embracing smaller homes. And, with environemental concerns on the rise, this will only add further fuel to the trend.

Relationship between neighborhood and health

A new study by the Canadian Population Health Inititiave reveals that:

health differences between neighbourhoods can bejust as big as – or sometimes bigger than – differences between Canada’s cities or even between countries.

While the methodology has limitations, many of the findings are intriguing.

  • As might be expected, more affluent neighbourhoods tended to have healthier people — what’s interesting is that the health benefits extended even to the less-wealthy in that community.
  • The closer a neighbourhood was to downtown, the less likely the inhabitants were obese (presumably because they walked more and drove cars less).

The study even mapped neighbourhoods by health. If you live in the Toronto area (or are thinking of moving there), click here for the links and software to view a map and see how your community fared.

Atlanta’s Urban Area — A trend back to the center?

Near 25% of people currently living in suburban Atlanta are giving serious thought to moving into the inner city, including downtown.

As reported recently in the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper (and CEOs for Cities), developer Tom Bell (photo is him in front of 91 Peachtree Tower, which he recently purchased) commissioned his own studies of resident intentions in order to know how to strategize future real estate development in the city of Atlanta itself.

If Bell is correct, downtown real estate is about to become much more valuable and not only sites for residential condominium construction.

  • If more knowledge workers and corporate workers want to live downtown, many businesses will follow them, relocating their operations from the suburbs to the city. This will increase demand for office space.
  • More workers and residents will increase the demand for shops and restaurants, thereby raising the value of retail real estate.
  • Also, more businesses and people in the city will increase tax reveues for the City of Atlanta, which facilitates providing quality services to residents — everything from public spaces to schools to arts venues.

Given the abundance of space around Atlanta and the ability for the region to sprawl, being able to attract people back to the core City of Atlanta will be a good omen for many other American cities. Cities with geographic constraints often already have desireable, liveable downtown and inner city areas. Those that offer an easy, larger suburban option for both residents and businesses — including Atlanta — have seen residents and corporation make the choice for sprawl.

Perhaps many cities like Atlanta have expanded as much as possible. People and businesses have reached the commuting limit and now the pull and trend will be “back to the center.”