Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

  • Why new homes will not kill the vibe in Bloor West Village

    I learned about this development proposal over the weekend through a Toronto Star article that I couldn’t read because it was behind a paywall. Oh well, here’s the Twitter post and the headline: “Once built, the 60-unit tower will be the only one on the strip. Locals say it will kill the area’s vibe.”

    The original proposal was a 16-storey mixed-use building at 2273-2279 Bloor Street West in Bloor West Village, but through negotiations with the City, it was reduced to 14 residential floors plus a mechanical penthouse wrapped with indoor and outdoor amenity spaces. The height is just under 50 metres, and the resulting FSI for the site is 9.2. What you see above is the revised massing (via UrbanToronto).

    So, will it kill the area’s vibe?

    One way to look at the proposal is that it’ll be the “only one.” But the other way to look at it is that we’ve historically underbuilt along one of our major subway lines and that it’s a positive indicator that we’re now seeing proposals like this being brought forward. This is good. It’s a fine-grained urban proposal with 50% two- and three-bedroom suites and zero parking.

    The question we should be asking ourselves is: how do we encourage more of this? The future of Toronto lies not in the two- to three-storey buildings you see depicted above, but in a mix of denser buildings that will unlock additional homes in the city and allow Toronto to wean itself off its dependency on the car. People are what create the vibe.

  • The geometric impossibility of the car-centric metropolis

    The Katy Freeway in Houston has 26 lanes at its widest, and after a $2.8 billion expansion between 2003 and 2008, commute times reportedly increased by 30-50%.

    Highway 401 in Toronto has 22 lanes at its widest and is ranked as the busiest highway in North America with an average of ~500,000 vehicles per day. It does not flow freely at most times throughout the day.

    Avenida 9 de Julio in Buenos Aires is one of the widest surface avenues in the world, but traffic congestion didn’t improve until lanes were converted into a bus rapid transit line.

    Sheikh Zayed Road in Dubai ranges from 12-16 lanes and acts as the main high-capacity spine for what is a linear, car-dependent global city. It too is known for its traffic congestion.

    The common thread among all of these examples is that, irrespective of the width and number of lanes, none of these cities have solved the problem of traffic congestion. I challenge you to think of a counterexample. And that is because it is impossible to build a large, economically vibrant global city centered primarily around private automobiles without suffering severe traffic congestion.

    The car is the most spatially inefficient mode of transport for cities, and this doesn’t change with tunnels or with autonomous vehicles (at least sufficiently to make this statement wrong). The fundamental issue is one of space: too many cars for a finite amount of road capacity.

    People who live in car-dependent communities are reluctant to accept this reality, but the only proven solution to congestion is to reorient away from the car toward more efficient modes of transport, namely mass transit. And one of the most effective ways to make this switch is to price roads and congestion.

    This is not to say that individual cars don’t have a place in global cities; they of course do. It is to say that it’s impossible to rely on them as the primary means of mobility without there being negative consequences.

    It’s also worth pointing out that one of the core features of cities is agglomeration economies, which is to say that the spatial concentration of activities leads to cost savings, productivity gains, and greater innovation. Cars demand the exact opposite: spatial dispersion.

    Which would you rather optimize for?

  • The world is going electric

    Here’s a telling chart from Colin McCarthy: The world is going electric, except for the US. The chart shows the rolling 12-month share of new battery-electric vehicle sales (plug-in hybrids excluded). The callout for the US marks the end of the federal EV tax credit in September 2025. The adoption curve reflects demand being pulled forward prior to its expiry, followed by the expected falloff. Among the long list of other things going on in the US, it is highly disappointing to see the politicization of renewable energy.

  • Why Waymo’s arrival in Toronto is our chance to price the roads

    Today, Waymo announced that it has started training its vehicles on the streets of Toronto, with the goal of welcoming riders in 2028. This is exciting. I wish the timeline were shorter, but whatever, I’ll take it.

    “Expanding into Canada marks an important milestone in Waymo’s global journey,” said Waymo co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana. “Toronto is one of the world’s great cities — innovative, diverse, and forward-looking. We’re proud to bring the Waymo Driver to Canada’s largest city and to partner with the vibrant business, arts and cultural communities that share our commitment to safer streets and more accessible mobility.”

    But I also agree with Matt Spoke of Toronto Standard that this is a perfect opportunity to start talking seriously about congestion pricing. As we all know, road pricing is generally unpopular until it’s implemented and people see the benefits. To date, this obstacle has blocked Toronto from taking serious action around traffic congestion.

    Autonomous vehicles are different. I think it would be politically pretty easy to levy congestion charges strictly on autonomous vehicles. Most people aren’t going to care about “the machines.” And it would be the proactive thing to do.

    Based on the safety data we have on AVs, none of us should be driving cars anymore. This means it’s only a matter of time before AVs become the majority of vehicles on the road. I will bet you that my daughter will never drive her own car (unless she becomes an old-school motorcar enthusiast).

    Implement road pricing for AVs today and nobody will notice. But in 10 years, it will be viewed as positively clairvoyant.

  • Toronto’s bike lane pendulum

    This week, the Province of Ontario started work on its plan to remove about 19 kilometres of bike lanes in Toronto on major streets such as Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and others. The plan is to restore motor vehicle lanes, push bike lanes to secondary streets, and “keep drivers moving.” However, work did not start without protest. Hundreds of cyclists have been protesting this week, and a handful of arrests have been made.

    The thing about bike lanes in Toronto, and other places, is that they tend to follow a political pendulum. We have a history of building bike lanes, and then paying lots of money to rip them out. It’s of course wasteful, but bike lanes are divisive and they can make for good politics. Recent polls suggest that the majority of Torontonians support removing them on major streets. And I can understand why. We’re all frustrated with traffic congestion!

    But here’s what I would say in response to what’s happening this week:

    • The city should be making the decision, not the province.
    • A street like Bloor serves as an important east-west artery in our cycling network. Toronto’s grid does not have a secondary street equivalent.
    • Toronto needs more major streets like Bloor. It needs a bold 21st-century masterplan.
    • It is true that some sections, such as in Etobicoke, do have lower cycling ridership, but every lane needs to be evaluated in terms of the broader network.
    • Built form dictates behaviour.
    • Successful cities must be multi-modal.

    Traffic congestion is no doubt a major problem in Toronto, but we’re nipping around the edges and unwilling to make big, bold changes. The keys to solving traffic congestion are appropriate land-use policies, road pricing, and investment in non-car forms of urban mobility. Pretending otherwise is just fooling ourselves. To solve congestion, Toronto needs to reduce automobile dependency.

  • Market > individual performance

    It seems like eons ago now, but I remember when the pandemic hit in 2020 and pre-construction condominium sales in Toronto went on pause until the market could figure out what was going on.

    Then, at the beginning of 2021, 8 Wellesley by CentreCourt launched and sold phenomenally well. It was an important moment because it signalled that the market was back. Developers could launch again.

    Finding the right time to launch is something that developers weigh carefully, even in the best of times. I don’t believe that anyone can accurately time markets, but you want to feel like the market is strong and sentiment is positive.

    Warren Buffett once wrote that “when a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.”

    What this implies is that market dynamics ultimately trump individual performance. No matter how smart, creative, and diligent you may be, there’s only so much that you can do if the market isn’t there for you.

    And in today’s condo market, developers are once again waiting for the next 8 Wellesley.

  • Is cycling an inferior economic good?

    Across most global cities, higher household income tends to correlate directly with higher rates of car ownership, solo car commuting, and vehicle miles travelled. So, one could argue, as many do, that cycling is what economists call an inferior good, meaning that as incomes increase, demand for cycling decreases.

    But this isn’t perfectly true. Data from the US — an obviously car-dominated place — has shown that bicycle demand is actually U-shaped. A 2013 community survey showed that the poorest quartile of Americans accounted for 39% of bicycle commuting, whereas the wealthiest quartile accounted for 20%. It was the people in the middle who biked the least.

    In the case of the poorest quartile, it is out of necessity; for the wealthiest quartile, it is a choice, often for health, environmental, and overall efficiency reasons. Cycling saves time and money.

    It could also be the case that the wealthy are able to live closer to work in more walkable communities, and so biking becomes a more tenable option. Irrespective of the reason, it casts doubt on the argument that cycling is truly an inferior good.

    I actually think that the more fundamental cause is our built environment. If you design a place for cars, then of course, as people make more money, they’re going to choose the more convenient option and drive more. It’s what you’ve been optimizing for.

    On the other hand, if you design for transit or cycling, then you start to break this relationship with income.

    Consider that in some of the wealthiest arrondissements in Paris, private vehicle commuting is less than 10%; that in Manhattan, the majority of households do not own a car despite having incomes that far exceed the US national average; and that in Copenhagen, high-income earners in the city centre cycle at the exact same rate as low-income earners.

    Wealthy people will always optimize for convenience. In a car-centric city, that means driving. But this doesn’t mean that cycling is an inferior good; it just means we’re building inferior cities.

  • Do children need to grow up in a detached home with a backyard?

    This is a perennial debate in urbanist circles.

    Mike Moffatt, founding director of the Missing Middle Initiative, recently wrote about it in The Globe and Mail and, not surprisingly, he cites survey results indicating that, if you ask most people in this part of the world, 90% will tell you that a two-storey single-detached house with a backyard is the most suitable for a young family.

    However, a survey doesn’t actually answer the question. You need data. One challenge in parsing the data is that families who buy two-storey single-detached houses with a backyard also tend to be wealthier, more financially stable, and consistently employed. These features are broadly good for child development.

    But according to Moffatt, if you strip away these variables, most of the advantages typically associated with this housing type disappear, except for one: access to green space.

    Kids need space to play, and it’s good for development. But does the green space need to be a private backyard attached to the home? The article also cites a study from Scotland that determined the answer to be yes. Private green spaces where kids can play independently with minimal parental supervision are better than public parks.

    Perhaps.

    Scotland would fall into the “part of the world” that has a cultural bias toward single-family housing. There are many cities and places where most people live in multi-unit housing — places like continental Europe. Are the children there, you know, less developed?

    There seems to be a general consensus that children need exposure to green space. Here, for example, is another study from Barcelona. But because single-family housing is so rare there, the researchers didn’t even consider that option.

    Instead, they focused on urban spaces, finding that (1) green spaces proximate to schools were actually the most critical for cognitive development (versus near home and along their commute) and (2) trees and vegetation are an important filter for urban air pollution. So at this point, I’m going to reserve final judgement.

    That said, the value of green spaces in general leaves city builders with an important insight: you may want to start with the green space strategy and then figure out the building type. Because there’s an argument to be made that it’s one of the most important pieces for families.

  • The context behind the viral Edmonton multiplex site

    I’ve had a few people respond to my recent post about the multiplex battle underway in Edmonton, and so I now have a bit more information. The address of the house in the photo is 10014 147 Street NW. Here’s a post-construction photo from the street:

    Here’s a street view image showing the two flanking multiplexes under construction:

    Here’s how close the house is to the LRT station currently under construction at Stony Plain Road & 149 Street (this is the Valley Line West extension):

    Here’s the route map:

    And finally, here’s the station’s location in relation to downtown:

    Customarily, this is exactly what you want to do on top of and around new transit investments. You want to build density. Transit investment and land-use policy, as I like to harp on here, are integral to one another. And if you do everything correctly, you won’t have to worry about parking minimums.

    Happy Thanksgiving weekend, everyone.

  • How cities change their minds

    Toronto, like all great cities, is in constant change and transition. I did a search through my blog archive this morning (okay, AI did) and I found it telling to see the things I was writing about and advocating for in the early days, some 10 years ago.

    We used to talk about eradicating parking minimums, and it was a novelty whenever a new project was built with zero spaces. But now we don’t talk about that. Parking requirements? What are those? We let the market determine how much might be needed, if any at all.

    We also used to talk a lot about laneway housing — a lot. For decades, daring architects and urbanists were navigating labyrinthian land-use approvals to build the odd one for themselves. Oftentimes they were only permitted if a pre-existing coach house was already on the site. But as a rule, laneway houses were bad and not permitted.

    Critics were concerned that they would erode the fabric of our low-rise communities and overrun them with renters. I remember people telling me this to my face at committee meetings, and reading comments from folks who believed that laneways were unsavoury places, and so surely only questionable people would want to live in one.

    Fast forward to today, and laneway and garden suites are standard practice across Toronto. They are no longer novel. They’re just part of the housing supply that Toronto now builds. In fact, in many new housing projects, they are the most desirable suite on the property.

    Shifting scales, I also remember the challenges that the team initially faced in getting One Delisle approved at the intersection of Yonge & St. Clair. At 155m, it was the tallest development approval at the time, and it’s currently the tallest constructed building in the submarket.

    One of the criticisms was that it was not in keeping with the scale of the office buildings constructed at and around the intersection between the 1960s and the early 1980s. But is that where the line should be drawn? Let’s not forget that before its post-war development boom, Yonge & St. Clair was a predominantly low-rise area. Surely this jump in scale provoked similar concerns.

    The planning deal that was struck over the last development cycle was that low-rise neighbourhoods would go largely untouched and that density would be concentrated around transit stations and in specific nodes. These nodes were the housing supply outlets. The inverse would have been to redevelop our low-rise neighbourhoods.

    Today, the only comments I hear about One Delisle’s height are that it’s not tall enough given its beautiful architecture. Opinions clearly evolve, and sometimes the things we’re unsure about aren’t so bad after all. In fact, sometimes they can become a defining characteristic of a place.