Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 347

Non-profit Vivre en Ville launched a new rental registry in Ontario last week. It is an extension of the one that they launched in Quebec last spring. The way it works is that it allows anybody to enter how much they're paying in rent. In other words, it's a crowdsourcing platform.

The site then displays this information on a map so that everyone can see current and past rents. The data points are all anonymous and no personal information is linked to them, but the idea is to "preserve affordability in the residential market by providing access to important rent information."

Obviously, the thinking is that greater transparency will lead to more affordable housing. Presumably because you'll now be able to see if you're somehow being bamboozled, among other things.

I'm not 100% convinced that this will be the case, but I am of the general opinion that more transparency and more information is better than less transparency and less information.

I also find it interesting that there seems to be a lot of people willing to take the time to share this kind of information. According to the Toronto Star , they launched in Ontario with over 3,000 rental inputs. And according to their website, the full registry has over 40,000 inputs.

Here is an argument that Philadelphia-based Diana Lind recently made on her blog, The New Urban Order :

I believe we’re at the beginning of the end of private car ownership in American cities. This idea came from thinking about the next steps when our RAV4 dies in the coming year or so: not only shouldn’t we replace it, but we won’t want to replace it. Right now only about a quarter of Americans do not drive to work, and only 9 percent of Americans do not have access to a car at all. But I think that in the coming decade there’s going to be a ton of potential to convert people living in dense cities and neighborhoods away from private cars.

There are a number of reasons for why she believes this is going to be the case and, to quickly summarize, they are: remote work, declining birth rates, more old people, Uber and other services, and autonomous vehicles. And generally, I would agree that there is a strong case to be made here.

But one thing that she does not explicitly talk about is the relevance of built form in this move away from private car ownership. She does mention "people living in dense cities" (see above), but does this mean that we are to assume density will remain a prerequisite, as it mostly is today?

Urban density dictates so much of how we move around. When I was driving around Paris during the summer , I couldn't wait to return our car and get back on foot. You should have also seen the gymnastics we pulled off to refill the tank. Driving in the city was annoying. Paris is designed for walking, taking the metro and, now , cycling.

On the other hand, when I land in Salt Lake City (Park City), the first thing I do is head to the car rental area. The city is getting better at trying to reorient itself , and there is a tram (Green Line) that runs from the airport through downtown, but it very much remains a driving city. And ideally you want something like a Toyota 4Runner that will take you through snow and up steep pitches.

So while I agree that, directionally, Diana is right, I think the question remains: What does this mean for individual cities and their built environments? In a city like Paris, it is obvious. Private car ownership is highly likely to continue declining. But in a place like Salt Lake City, I think it's going to be much more challenging and take a lot longer.

Photo by Chris Henry on Unsplash

As many of you know, I am learning French, again .

One of the small things that I found really interesting in this week's class -- besides, of course, figuring out how the hell to use le subjonctif -- was the expression "en province." In France, this effectively refers to any place in the country that isn't Paris -- the capital city/region. And it turns out that many other countries employ a similar kind of vocabulary.

According to Wikipedia , people in Peru say "en provincias", people in Mexico say "la provincia", people in Poland say "prowincjonalny", and people in Bulgaria say "в провинцията", whatever that means. What is fascinating to me about this is that it implies a very capital and urban-centric mentality. You're either in the capital city or you're, well, in the provinces.

It's also not something that is used in either Canada or the US. In Toronto, you'll hear people say that someone is "up north" and, in Philly, you'll hear people say "down the shore" to indicate that they're headed in the general vicinity of the east coast. But as far as I'm aware, there isn't a specific term that is used to describe any and all lands that exist outside of our capital cities.

Maybe it's because Ottawa isn't our biggest city and so it would be silly to designate everything outside of it as being some sort of provincial non-capital territory. But I wonder if part of it is because we don't have the same urban-centric mentality. Could it be that we just don't value and think about our principal cities in the same way?