Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 617

This is an interesting article talking about the price of carbon and where it will need to go if we are to get to zero carbon emissions by 2050. The current price of carbon on the EU’s Emissions Trading System is around $59 per tonne. But according to the OECD, carbon will need to be closer to $150 per tonne by 2030 to keep the world on track with its sustainability goals. What this means is that if you emit carbon, it will get more expensive to do that.

The article also suggests that there is talk of a minimum price on carbon that would slowly increase over time. This would provide greater certainty to investors who are buying/trading carbon, while at the same time encouraging a broader push away from carbon emissions. This proposal has been backed by the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance , which is a group of companies that collectively represent about $6.6 trillion of assets under management.

I think it is clear that we are headed in this direction. But it is going to be an expensive transition. Take, for example, the case of new buildings. Many/most cities now have sustainability goals that similarly increase — become more stringent — over time. The thinking is that this gradual transition allows the development industry to incrementally adapt. Makes sense.

However, there are real challenges. Generally speaking, these new targets increase the cost of building. The result is a set of opposing forces. We want more sustainable buildings, but we also want more affordable housing. The problem is that the former often works against the latter, even though it is the right thing to do. And so it is not only about the industry catching up to new targets, it is also about the market catching up through higher rents and higher sale prices.

My view is that offsets and subsidies are important to rebalancing some of these forces. Because without them, it is likely that we are doing things that run counter to each other.

The Kowloon Walled City was once one of the most densely populated precincts in the world. And by some measures, it was. Prior to its demolition in 1993, the Walled City was believed to house some 50,000 people — mostly informally — and was known for problems of prostitution, gambling, and drug usage.

But despite these problems, the Walled City is the kind of urban settlement that fascinates architects, planners, and other city builders. This is partially because it wasn’t centrally planned. There is no individual architect or specific team responsible for its design.

It was, instead, a kind of self-organizing system — both from a built form standpoint and from, I’m sure, a socioeconomic standpoint. And so it is fascinating to see what results when you let that happen on its own.

Here are a series of cross-sections of the Walled City that were meticulously drawn prior to its demolition. They obviously aren’t new, but it is the first time I am seeing them. It is interesting to see everything from mahjong parlors to strip clubs stacked on top of one another in such a confined space.

This was the Kowloon Walled City.

Our server at lunch today told us that the Grouse Grind hike should take us about 45 minutes. She also mentioned that she has seen some people attempt it in flip flops, but that she would strongly advise against that. That was sound footwear advice. But even sans flip-flops, it still took Bianca and I about an hour and a half.

The Grouse Grind is no joke. It is 850 meters of nothing but steps and steep incline. But it is well worth it.

I’ve heard that some people do “the Grind” for meetings and/or business development. In fact, Chip Wilson, founder of Lululemon, has said before that he uses it to vet potential partners. It’s a way for him to test cultural alignment. That makes a lot of sense when you consider what Lululemon is all about.

This exact approach — you know, doing “the Grind” — may not make as much sense for other businesses and industries. But it doesn’t change the fact that culture is critical within organizations. And as far as I can tell, the most effective way to cultivate it and test for alignment is to be face-to-face.