Here's an interesting presentation by Albert Wenger, who is a partner at Union Square Ventures. He starts by showing a logarithmic chart comparing per capita energy consumption and GDP per capita. Then, by way of a clear empty area in the chart's data points, he makes the argument that there's no such thing as a wealthy, low-energy nation. If you're a wealthy country, you consume a lot of energy. That's just how it works. He then goes through a number of historical energy breakthroughs, landing on the point that, today, we are in need of much more energy. In other words, we need another energy breakthrough. We need it because we're still burning fossil fuels and putting too much carbon into the atmosphere, and because we have really big energy needs: everything from data centers to the full electrification of our homes, buildings, and cars. One piece of good news is that we are seeing exponential growth in solar energy. Today, our global install base is still relatively small, but the thing about exponential growth is that it can creep up on you fast.

It's an interesting presentation. And if you'd prefer to read his talk instead, which is/was my preference, you can do that here.

I just read about a popular co-working company in New York called Framework. The concept is super simple. They rent single-person office pods (see above). Each one is sound insulated and has a sitting/standing desk, a filing cabinet, a kettle, a french press, and a small fridge. And at their latest location in Williamsburg, these rent for $820 per month. Their tagline is "your home office away from home" and I think that's a good way of describing the offering. Because let's consider the math.

These pods are 8 feet x 8 feet. So at $820 per month, one would be effectively paying about $12.81 per square foot in rent, which I would assume is significantly higher than average apartment rents in the city. If you take the present value of $820 per month over 25 years at a rate of 5% (to generally simulate mortgage payments), you get close to $140k in value. My point being that if you can afford an additional $820 per month for an office pod, then you could likely afford to rent or buy a home with an additional 64 square feet.

But from what I can tell, that's not necessarily the main problem that Framework is solving. The key words seem to be: "away from home." Home can be distracting for some people and in some situations. If you're trying to get serious work done, I can see why shuttering yourself in a pod would be an attractive solution.

Photo via Framework

Tomorrow is opening day for the 2025 Sundance Film Festival in Park City and Salt Lake City. This year it takes place from January 23 to February 2. For those of you who maybe aren't familiar, Sundance is the largest independent film festival in the US. In 2023, it had 423,234 combined in-person and online viewers, and, last year, it saw 72,840 in-person attendees (in a city with just over 8,000 people). So even though there's an online component, it's still very much an IRL experience.

If any of you have been before, you'll know that it's an awesome time to be in Park City. I have vivid memories of singing Phil Collins in a karaoke Uber. The bars and restaurants are also packed and the sidewalks are overflowing with people. So much so that, this year, Main Street is going to be converted to pedestrian only, which I understand is a first. The urbanist in me was obviously happy to hear this, and I now look forward to seeing it play out on the socials.

If any of you are interested in attending, Parkview Mountain House still has some dates available during the festival. Here's the link.

Cover photo by Kirby Taylor on Unsplash

Deloitte recently asked 1,000 Americans if they would be willing to give up car ownership in favor of something that they are calling "Mobility-as-a-Service." This umbrella moniker is meant to capture everything from public transit and bike shares to Ubers and car rentals.

Here are the results:

What's interesting is how willing young people seem to be to forgo car ownership. (Note: Willing, here, includes people who answered somewhat willing, willing, and very willing.)

It's also doesn't seem to be dependent on geography. Broadly speaking, urbanites are more likely to say that they would be willing to give up owning a car. In this survey, 50% of people in urban areas said that they would be at least somewhat willing, whereas the number drops to 17% for people in rural and suburban areas. But oddly enough, young people in rural and suburban areas are just as willing, if not more willing than their urban counterparts. I wonder why.

This maybe suggests that we are seeing a generational shift in how younger people view car ownership. That, or they haven't started having enough kids yet and their perspective will change as they get older. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a mix of both, but more of the former. Because look at the large spread between the next two cohorts in the above chart. There are some trends here (assuming this data is representative). It's not just about family life.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Canadians are some of the most unwilling people, according to this survey:

Personally, I hate driving. I look forward to the day when most cars drive themselves. So I'd place myself in the very willing camp. What about you?

The work of l'Atelier parisien d'urbanisme (or Apur) is right in my wheelhouse. Run by an architect, they are a group that analyzes, documents, and then develops strategies for urban matters impacting Paris and Greater Paris (la Métropole du Grand Paris). For example, last year they published a book called Paris Atlas, which contains 150 original maps and lots of statistics about the city. And this month, they published a note talking about population and demographic trends in the city. Here's a brief summary of this latest report.

As of January 1, 2022, there were 7,115,576 people in Greater Paris:

Between 2016 and 2022, its population grew by about 0.2% per year or about 14,800 people per year. This is slower than the previous reporting period (2011 to 2015). It's also all because of natural births:

When it comes to migration, more people leave the city each year than come to it:

This runs in contrast to a city region like Toronto, where the vast majority of our population growth comes from positive net migration. This is also true of Canada as a whole. Still, Paris is not immune to lower birthrates and a declining average household size:

Another factor impacting population, according to the report, is the decline in principal residences (homes occupied for more than 6 months of the year) and the rise of what the report calls "unoccupied homes", which includes secondary homes and vacation rentals. As of 2021, the number of "unoccupied homes" was estimated at approximately 19.2%:

However, in four arrondissements (1, 6, 7, and 8), the number of homes not used as a principal residence is thought to exceed 30%! This is making it even harder to build enough new homes. For example, between 2015 and 2021, Paris built approximately 30,300 new homes. (Reminder, the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area completed about that many in one year last year.) But at the same time, the city counted 14,600 fewer principal residences. This is, I guess, what happens when you're one of the most visited cities in the world.

To end, I'll leave you all with this population density map:

The darkest areas represent more than 250 people per hectare. That works out to more than 25,000 people per square kilometer (just divide the above numbers by 0.01). At the same time, between 2016 and 2022, the population of Paris proper (not Greater Paris) decreased by an average of 12,800 people per year. This is in comparison to an average decrease of 11,900 people per year for the period of 2011 to 2016. As is the case in many/most cities, Paris' population growth is happening largely in the suburbs and in the outskirts.

Cover photo by JOHN TOWNER on Unsplash

Back in 2022, Altus Group did a municipal benchmarking study where they looked at approval timelines, development charges, and a host of other factors that could be impacting housing affordability in Canadian cities. I blogged about it then and spoke specifically about its benchmarking of approval timelines. But I revisited it this morning after seeing Mike Moffatt tweet about it and I came across the below chart.

Also, approval timelines are less of a concern today. There are lots of zoned sites that are ready to go, but can't because of the market. Instead, what the below charge does is compare municipal charges on a per square foot basis for low-rise and high-rise housing. What's interesting is that in most cases, but in all cases in Ontario and BC, the charges are higher for high-rise housing.

Example: If you bought an 800 sf condominium in Toronto and the fees were based on the numbers in this report, you'd be paying $125 psf x 800 sf = $100,000 in municipal charges alone. Once again, I am of the opinion that our industry should find a way to transparently itemize these charges so that people/purchasers can see where their money is going.

Now, part of this has to do with higher land values for higher-density housing and municipal fees that are calculated based on appraised land value. But it's also driven by suite sizes becoming smaller (to make the end price more affordable for buyers and renters).

Here in Toronto, it doesn't matter if you're building an 800 sf two-bedroom or an 8,000 sf two-bedroom apartment, the development charge fee would be the same. And so it is perhaps not surprising that as suite sizes have come down and charges have gone up, so too did the costs on a per square foot basis.

But it raises an important and obvious question: Is this what we want? I mean, aren't we trying to encourage more infill housing in places where people don't need to drive and we can leverage existing services? Yes, that's what we are saying. Unfortunately, our charges suggest the opposite.

If you'd like to download a copy of the report, you can do that over here. Please keep in mind that this is data from 2022 and there have been changes since then. In many cases the fees are now higher, but in some cases, like in the City of Vaughan, the fees are now lower.

Cover photo by Scott Webb on Unsplash

Here's an excerpt from a recent post by Scott Galloway talking about LA's devastating wildfires:

The question isn’t whether to rebuild, but where. Pacific Palisades is a wonderful place to live, but those amazing views of beautiful topography of foothills, mountains, canyons, and ridgelines are located in fire zones. Early estimates put the total cost of the wildfires at $250 to $275 billion. The property insurance bill is expected to easily top $20 billion. California’s insurance market was already in crisis, as leading insurers had done the math and decided to leave the state or not renew policies in fire-prone areas. California’s state-backed FAIR Plan is the insurer of last resort in these areas. Statewide, the number of FAIR Plan policies in 2024 increased 40% from 2023, and 85% in Pacific Palisades. Continuing to underwrite wood-built craftsman homes in Altadena (median home value: $1.3 million) and mansions along PCH is a wealth transfer from California’s taxpayers to some of its wealthiest people.

This isn’t unique to California; 10 states across the political spectrum, including Florida and Texas, sued a federal flood insurance program after it adjusted premiums to better reflect climate realities. As one meme put it: You may not believe in climate change, but your insurance company does.

He's not wrong, though I'm sure that the impacts of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in California's history were felt by a broad cross section of people. And, no matter how much money you have, losing your home is going to be traumatizing. My mom's house in New Brunswick burnt down when she was a young girl and she remembers it vividly. You lose things that are priceless. Still, the questions of where and how to rebuild are important ones. Living in a high-risk area has costs associated with it. I do think it's only fair to ask who will be underwriting these costs.

Here's some unsurprising but important news via Urbanation:

• New condominium apartment sales last year totalled 4,590 homes. This is a 78% decline compared to the latest 10-year average of 20,835 homes, and the slowest year for new condo sales in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GHTA) since 1996. See above chart.

• Only 802 new condominium apartments were sold in Q4-2024.

• Six projects launched in Q4-2024, totalling 1,829 homes, of which only 10% were sold. A total of 1,506 new condominium apartments started construction during this same quarter.

• A total of 29,800 condominium homes were completed in 2024 -- a record. This year, 30,793 homes are expected to complete, which if it happens, will create another new record.

• In total, 78,742 new condominium homes are currently under construction across the GTHA, as of Q4-2024.

This may seem like a lot. But 30k of these homes are expected to complete and occupy this year. That leaves around 48k under construction, plus whatever new starts end up happening in 2025. So as Shaun Hildebrand points out in the above release, at some point around 2026-2027, we are going to see a dramatic fall off in completions and new housing supply.

Even if starts magically ramped up this year (which would be unexpected), there would still be a period of relatively low completions that would need to work its way through the system. Development is, by nature, excruciatingly slow to respond to changes in demand. There's always a lag. So overall housing supply is something we're paying close attention to right now as we execute on our real estate strategies.

Chart via Urbanation

The key to making transit useful for people is not very complicated. It is highly dependent on population densities. In other words, it works best when it's proximate to as many people as possible. And so the more low density a city is, the harder it is for this to be true. It just isn't feasible to run that many lines. To that end, here's an interesting study by the School of Cities at the University of Toronto that compares rail transit and population density for 250 cities around the world.

This is what Toronto vs. Hong Kong looks like:

I chose Hong Kong because, according to this dataset, it has the highest percentage of people living within 1 km of a major rail transit station at 75.8%. Toronto, on the other hand, sits at 20%, which is frankly not very good (though I don't see our slow-moving streetcars on the above map). It's also why our bus network has to do so much heavy lifting to get people to rail. This places us 8th in the US and Canada (see below). Once again, when it comes to transit in this part of the world, there's New York, and then everyone else:

But add in the rest of the world -- most notably Europe and East Asia -- and New York drops down to 17th position:

This, to me, is a critically important metric. For what share of residents is rail transit close and convenient? In cities like Hong Kong, Paris, and Stockholm, it is the majority of the urban population. But for the majority of cities in Canada and the US, the answer is a very small percentage. To improve this, you can obviously build more lines. And that's certainly part of it. But to really maximize the value of these investments, you also need density. I hope our city leaders are paying attention to this metric.

Spain is a beautiful country and lots of people want to visit and/or buy property there. But here's what Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez recently had to say about this:

Just to give an idea, in 2023 alone non-European Union residents bought around 27,000 houses and flats in Spain. And they didn't do it to live in them, they didn't do it for their families to have a place to live, they did it to speculate, to make money from them, which we – in the context of shortage that we are in – obviously cannot allow.

And by cannot allow, he means that Spain is preparing to implement a 100% tax on property purchases made by buyers of non-EU countries, such as the UK. It's not quite a foreign buyer ban, but it's certainly a punitive tax that should, in theory, dissuade the majority of buyers.

I am, however, unclear as to how this will interact with Spain's golden visa program. For over 10 years, Spain has been encouraging foreigners to buy real estate in the country (minimum value of €500,000) in exchange for permanent residency.

Will this program remain, and will these foreign buyers now be taxed at 100%? Or will permanent residency also exempt you? I don't know.

Whatever the case, it is yet another example of government trying to appear as if they're doing something meaningful about housing affordability. You might also remember that, last year, Barcelona came out with a complete ban of short-term rentals starting in November 2028.

But once again, I think it's important to remember that economics is the study of choice and that there are always tradeoffs. A decision in one place, will create second-order consequences somewhere else.