Відео

Montreal will be just a regular Canadian, english-speaking city in 30-50 years. The rest of Quebec - in around 100 years. So, you don't need learn French to live there

I think a valuable piece of information would be the number of vehicles that are engaged in commuting pre and post covid. A lot more people are working from home, this had a big effect on commutes for vehicles. It was just more convenient to drive than take transit but that's changing.

"Torontonians consider having to wait 8 mins for the subway a disaster." Guess we're a disaster prone city then XD

To increase transit ridership all the cities have to do is what Calgary did to become one of the highest transit user city in the world. They just need to control the majority of the parking in the downtown core and become one of the most expensive cities in the world for parking.

I had heard that the City of Edmonton has more than hit its full recovery

You have to include the Green Lines in Boston--those lines are extremely popular..

It would be due to Vancouver being designed for public transit and keeping automobiles at bay when reclaiming industrial land. By same man who drew Simon Frasier university on a mountain top. Cousin Geoffrey Massey.

I love the new Valley Line LRT in Edmonton! ♥

Netherlands is flat therefore conducive to cycling and walking.

This is misleading as many of the buildings in the city don't reach the limit they can. Many places have 2-6 story buildings which can go to 14 or 15 stories if they just tore down the old row houses or random 4 story buildings downtown, along 14th, 16th , H, I & K Streets and many of the major avenues in the city and built new buildings. Many of the buildings also have double height floors in the lobby which skews the floor limit. With regular 8-10 foot ceilings on flat land you could get a 15 story building in many places.

The height limit has created urbanism. It means the urban area is massive. It’s the only city in the United States of its size that doesn’t suffer from the missing middle middle problem. Houston and and Dallas are larger metro areas, but the dense urban center feels comparatively tiny, quickly devolving to endless suburban sprawl. 13 stories is plenty for an office building or apartment complex. And you see 13 stories uniformly across much of the city, with pockets of upzoning continuing to expand it. The answer is to build more orbital metro lines in Maryland and Virginia, so that the edge cities like Arlington, Tysons, and Bethesda are more transit accessible. And to expand upzoning within DC to push lower density areas to the height limit.

A bigger problem created by DC's height limit is the housing supply limitation. Of course, DC's zoning laws play a role in the relative lack of housing units too. The housing crisis is a much better argument against the height limit than job sprawl.

What about making Tysons the new downtown, i.e. building more metro lines and increasing bus services to/from Tysons? I think building more public transits is a better solution than moving jobs to downtown DC.

When I was in Toronto last summer, I thought I was in India. They call their city "diverse" by bringing in millions from India.

Removing the height limit would ruin the aesthetics of the District. It would be dumber than it would have been to build condo towers in the Marin highlands and the Presidio.

To be honest, while that idea of shorter buildings is cool and should be preserved in the less demanded areas of large cities, I really don't think I would care that much in the long run because it's more important to encourage social activity outside one's living area because there's just more quality interaction on the ground floor. As long as our cities don't become one huge class skyscraper and instead make some nice, human-scale architecture for the towers containing living quarters, I don't think I, or many others, would mind that much. Though, again, I could get the appeal in outer areas of a city for this type of housing, except for cases like NYC where there's literally no land to go around so everything will inevitably be towers at some point, but again that's just New York City and that could be minimized by increasing density in already existing areas of the outer boroughs but Manhattan will still always be in demand so that will eventually be a skyscraper island, which I hope housing efforts could be made on because that island could be affordable again at least for a few more centuries of growth or something until the whole damn island is used and we start expanding it the most Dutch way possible. I'm rambling. Point is, I think ground interaction is more important than limiting density for some pseudo ground interaction using balconies, or I guess another way to say it is I'd value third places (a park or a coffee shop, possibly at the bottom of your apartment complex cuz mixed-use, anywhere not at work or home) over first places (home like on the balcony to someone on the ground I guess). God I need to just stop now bye

One thing I disagree about this is Tyson’s. Yes right now it’s not that great to take the public transit there, but they are literally planning to rebuilt it for humans by 2050, so you need to wait before saying it can be fixed as it is being fixed

As mentioned, frequencies and automation are what really helped Vancouver's SkyTrain. That being said, although technically BC had less strict law/rules... the higher-percentage Asian population meant that most people and businesses followed guidelines more readily so fewer actual rules were needed. Also impressive given the narrow width of SkyTrain cars on the Expo/Millennium lines. Also, Vancouver's downtown has a lower office-concentration than places like Toronto. As a LOT of jobs switched to WFH for offices, Vancouver was less affected... as offices are spread throughout the metro. As such, it's not just commuting to the office that SkyTrain is used for, but for travel in general.

As an Angeleno who rides public transit I agree with your assent. Ultimately these were riders who are not choice riders, generally this population performs manual labor to some extent and earns money through cash. Generally the majority of these people from my experiences are Hispanic/Latino and generally women (maybe like a little more than half?) between ages of 40-70. It is really sad because after Covid the quality of the metro system (particularly the Red (B) and Purple (D) Lines) have become generally unsafe, unsanitary, and higher chance of being a victim of some crime. These people have less opportunities and during this pandemic they really had to work and could not afford not taking the train. Many Angelenos (transplants or not) are unfortunately very status conscious and don’t want to ride the trains given the perception that only the very desperate use it. Or if they give it a shot they may not really do it ever again due to the unsanitary conditions, chances of being accosted, and antisocial behavior they may witness. Majority of these problems are due to the city and surrounding area’s ongoing homelessness crisis which is another topic. Ultimately the red and purple lines have become the only public space that these people can exist in without being harassed by the police. Our local government has done a lot to try and make these stations cleaner and safer however there is still more work to be done. Housing the homeless and other efforts to increase lighting and have metro “ambassadors” have taken effect, I have do not have any data to suggest how effective these efforts have been but I suspect it at least has improved the perception due to the increased transit ridership rates we are experiencing now and a more diverse group of people taking transit including choice riders.

DC does not need any skyscrapers. Thats why Alrington and later alexandria, bethasa, silver springs, reston, tyson are the best places to build hi rises above DC height restrictions.

Crazy nonsense that hospitals and universities are far from the urban centres in the first place. One could argue those are big footprint projects that couldn't have been accommodated closer in. But Vancouver is building a giant new hospital and health neighbourhood on the edge of downtown. And footprints of hospitals and universities needn't be a single unified site, so long as the parts are nearby to each other. I argue that a large part of the reason housing is so expensive is exactly because of sprawling, overly zoned development patterns that make land artificially scarce and force high transportation costs on residents and taxpayers. We have so much to fix.

Vancouver has higher ridership than pre-pandemic levels but service was not increased. This is why I no longer take transit.

I love this channel, but there are too many problems with this hypothesis. People LOVE the height limit, with the Washington Monument and Capitol being dinstict standouts, just like the Eifffel Tower and Sacre-Coeur in Paris. Despite being the 3rd largest office market in the USA after Manhattan and Chicago's Loop, essentially all buildings and streets and downtown parks have equal exposure to sunlight, which is amazing. The city's scale is also a big part of its tourism draw -- a gigantic economic driver for the city. Finally, as an architect working in DC: DC is not a great place for high design. A LOT of very mediocre office buildings are built downtown, but because they're short, you don't see them until you're directly in front of them. This is a great thing! ALSO: The height limit doesn't reduce residential density. In the 1950s, DC housed nearly 1 million residents. In 2024, we're closer to 650k residents. So, DC can reasonably house up to 50% more people without building towers, as the height limit existed at DC's population peak. (Regarding the Cairo hotel: local lore posits that it was the fact that the Cairo was a hotel for blacks, and whites didn't like the idea of blacks "looking down on them" that further codified the height restrictions.)

As a Danish car driver. I honk at cyclists that do not use the bike lane, but it almost never happens.

Keep dc as European as possible, we can see why removing height restrictions did to London, ruined a once beautiful city with eyesores that you can never escape

I lived in LA during that time and one factor could be that certain if not all modes of transit became fare-free. Remember kids, it's not public transit if it's not fare-free :) ------ also your voice is so interesting/ cool/ therapeutic/ suspenseful and unique you must do voice acting! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paris' skyline doesn't hurt its transit network, and it's even shorter than DC. I say build up the surrounding burbs, and then argue about what buildings can suitably be larger than twelve stories near the hill.

Our present mayor is trying to remove some of the bike paths' and hand them back over to the cars

I loved 12 yeas in Montreal and your video will be my “go to” video to show my favourite city! Great work!

You are missing the Metro in Mexico city and the Tren ligero in Guadalajara

I'm not sure DC's maximum skyline height is really to blame, so much as the large expanse of detached houses/low-rise townhouses less than a mile from the core. High rises have a significantly cost per square foot for construction (there is no such thing as an affordable high-rise condo), so if you can zone your city to stay under 20 stories and prevent suburban sprawl within the city-proper, that's ideal. Also, job sprawl is a good thing because it ensures that cities don't devolve into a hierarchical urban configuration, in which poor commuters end up commuting much longer distances than wealthy residents. A polycentric city tends to be a lot more affordable than cities with a single core. It doesn't have to be at odds with walkability (Netherlands is a good example), and allows for arrangements where denser transit oriented forms of development can still be close to nature.

Alexandria Va just lost a huge development opportunity along the Potomac because this kind of NIMBYism. It was ridiculous. Arlington Va seems to be much more reasonable and future facing with citizen engagement to guide growth and not cut off growth all together the way Alexandria is doing at the moment.

Every US city has residential and office/commercial development in their suburbs. This is the norm, not the exception. Claiming that height restrictions is causing this in DC is quite a jump - Prove it with statistics. I believe that DC's current office vacancy is about 20%. If so, it would be false to state that height restrictions are preventing enough office space in the city. Furthermore many of the suburbs where office buildings have congregated are well served by public transit and are very walkable. You chose to discuss Tysons, which is the overwhelming exception. Tyson's is notorious for being car centric. (It should be noted that there is an effort to change this over time.). The answer is not to allow tall buildings in DC. The answer is to provide a metro line that rings the city and connects the outer suburban office nodes. This would provide better transit suburb to suburb as well as from the city. OH! that's right, that would be called the Purple Line.

This is a weak thesis. Treating Rossyln-Ballston, Silver Spring and Bethesda like they are some far flung suburbs in simply inaccurate. For the day to day DC resident Rossyln IS part of the urban fabric of the DMV same as DC. Skyscrapers can be a Quality of Life issue there is a reason why Europe has dedicated CBD's outside of their downtowns, like DC. I will take a dense, lively european style city center over a tall, dead, non-dense American city center every day of the week.

I hope DC never repeals the height act. It’s my most favorite thing about the city that it never became a measuring contest for skyscraper obsessed architects

I'm so glad that Vancouver's transit system had recovered to pre-pandemic level. Livability of a city increase when you have a prosperous transit system.

Meh… i see a ton of people in EU cities that are far more dense than DC with similar height requirements and restrictions. So thats not an issue. Sprawl is an issue.

9:48 is a perfect example of job sprawl not existing on a metro line. Mark Center in Alexandria, VA is shown and is a major location for many businesses. It features a bus station with many bus lines feeding into it, but as you can see the highway right nearby is rather large and there are other large roads connecting the area that encourage commuters to drive and the congestion as a result is pretty bad. My job relocated from this area and just happens to be near a metro station now. Being able to commute without a car has been such a benefit!

The DC area transit system is horrendous. If the metro and Maryland train systems were better, I'd use them, but 5hey are woefully inadequate and dangerous.

A well done video document on changes to our city. I have lived in the heart of the "Plateau-Montréal" borough for the past 39 years. For a long time, we were convinced that what we had, and were building, was one of the best kept secrets in Canada. Well, I guess that secret has now been revealed.

A well done video document on changes to our city. I have lived in the heart of the "Plateau-Montréal" borough for the past 39 years. For a long time, we were convinced that what we had, and were building, was one of the best kept secrets in Canada. Well, I guess that secret has now been revealed.

This is like comparing a piece of dog shit to a piece of cat shit.

It looks like you walked around my old neighborhood: Adams Morgan! I miss DC, but it needs to loosen hight restrictions. If not downtown, at least beyond Columbia Heights and across the Anacostia River.

The Russian Government website was down almost all day today... didnt anyone else notice...🙃🤭🤭🤭😂😂😂😂

I think we are approaching this in too binary of a fashion. DC can increase its density AND preserve the sight-lines around the monumental core. The law could be changed to allow for progressively taller buildings as one moves away from the Capitol. In effect, that’s already accomplished across the Potomac, in Virginia Arlington and Alexandria. And there is SW and SE DC, unfairly maligned areas close to the central and ready for development.

Why do you talk like that? Is that tiktok accent or something? Weird intonation

It's not like there's a hard choice to make. I ride on bike lanes when they're available, good or bad. But they are limited, and so the rest of my riding i suppose you could call vehicular. And you do need experienced and skill there. When riding on roads you should when needed insist on your right as a road user, which keeps you safer actually (the main driver is relative speed difference). This mostly applies to riding in cities of course. Probably John's opinion is a result of his years of experience riding when there were no bike lanes to ride on. So it's understandable where he's coming from. But to insist that there should not be bike paths, lanes, etc is whacked.

Lived in Toronto for years and in Chicago many many many times. They’re both great cities for very different reasons, however, the cost-of-living now is appreciably different. Chicago has areas that are far far more affordable than Toronto has now. Up in Edgewater, you can buy a lovely two bedroom two bath condominium for $300,000 in a great area, that would cost way over $1 million CDN ( 700,000U.S.) now. Toronto is becoming increasingly prohibitively expensive, Chicago can still find some really good value, along with of course, expensive various too.

I would love to see both of you make a video on your thoughts on *Bill 96* in Quebec given your residence in Montreal. It would be insightful 👍

Height restriction is one of the few good things about Washington DC.