As discussed in my previous post, I find Toronto fascinating and enjoy visiting.  But it’s also a city with some immediate challenges that are perhaps holding the city back.

So what changes will improve Toronto and help it evolve faster into a global, international knowledge-economy hub?

#1.  Better transit.  The metro system hasn’t been upgraded since 1967, apparently.  Certainly feels that way to ride it.   The entire system needs an overhaul.  The stations each need a facelift and the network needs to go more places like Pearson Airport, “downtown Mississauga” (Square One) and York University.  This will help get people out of their cars and prolong the life of the existing freeway system.  If oil returns to $170/barrel, or more, I worry about how the automobile-centred suburban ring around Toronto will function.

#2 Simultaneous with better transit, the city needs to deal with certain freeway bottlenecks like the Gardiner Expressway exit by Union Station into downtown.  New condo and office towers opening and pending in the area will surely generate more traffic.  It’s insane now. I hope the city has a plan to deal with this.  Maybe congestion pricing? electronic tolls?

#3 Better recognition within the business and political community that Toronto’s future economic growth may need to be less centred on the financial services and traditional manufacturing sectors, and more based upon knowledge-economy production, including information technology, business services, or new media.

For people who live in Toronto, there is probably a list that might involve parks or schools.  But I can’t comment on that (however, feel free to do so in the comments if you live there).  This is the outsider’s perspective of what seems to be holding the city back–and it’s a list that would apply to many cities that also need better transit, solutions to automotive gridlock and a broader recognition of new economic growth possibilities.

Over the past year I’ve spent a lot of time analyzing the intersection of workplace trends and urban living trends.  It’s becoming probable that the urban knowledge economy will require many workers to supply their own private workspace.  Employers — or the city milieu itself — will be responsible for supplying the space for collaboration. This has pros and cons for individuals, employers as well as the city itself.

Increasingly, many office-based employers are literally breaking down walls to create a much more open environment for workers, often with the goal of increasing cross-communication among employees from different divisions and backgrounds.   Gone will be the days of many individuals hunkered down in private offices or high walled cubicles.  Those that have not yet done so often have making this change within their 5- year or 10-year  plan.

Having worked in both environments, I have found open plan to be far more efficient for idea generation and collaboration.  However, when I really need to focus and write down the results of the idea generation, or to build an Excel model or other tool to move a project forward, uninterrupted, private time can be essential.   Most knowledge-based workers I speak with feel similarly, at least when it comes to the need to focus.

Some companies that have moved to open plan offer silent workspaces for such concentrated efforts — or even small bookable  private offices.  Many also allow employees to work from home when they feel the need for privacy.

Thinking ahead, I suspect many knowledge economy companies will increasingly rely on the employees to provide their own private spaces (which might be at home, might be at the library, might be on a park bench).  The employer will offer only collaborative options and allow or expect people to find their own way to block-out or escape distractions when necessary.

Will this work? I think it might.  It will allow employers to save some money on office space. (Although typically technology costs rise to supply more mobile options, thus possibly negating any real savings here.  Time will tell.)  And, it may allow many employees to better manage their own productivity as well as work-life balance needs.

Will employees resent being expected to supply their own workspace?  I keep thinking that many will.  But, I’ve yet to find anyone who will admit to being anything but excited at the prospect of generally being allowed to work from wherever they feel most productive.

Indeed, a major US financial institution I interviewed found that when given a choice, over 80% chose to go mobile — which meant giving up an assigned office, but having the privilege of working from anywhere.  Most still came into “the office” 3 or 4 days per week, needing to stay in the loop on company happenings, collaborate with team members, and catch up with supervisors and mentors. Those that didn’t want to go mobile had typically only recently been promoted to a role with a private office and were therefore reluctant to give up this perceived status symbol.

This shift toward mobile work could really benefit the functioning of cities.  What if everyone didn’t commute at the same time?  Some people might find it more productive to work from home for a few hours, then head to the office mid morning.  Others would come in early and leave early, finishing their workday from their patio in the sun.  Those who prefer suburban living might not commute everyday.

What about you?  would you resent or embrace the more flexible workplace, or the mobile-worker based city?

What other pros or cons do you see?