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.
I have a soft spot for Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It’s a beautiful town and, out of all the places I’ve snowboarded, it’s easily my favorite.
That’s why I was excited to learn that Jackson is currently building one of the first vertical farms in the world (and in a cold ski town at that). Using a vacant site in the middle of town, a new venture called Vertical Harvest is building a three storey, 13,500 square foot hydroponic greenhouse. It’s being done as a public/private partnership.
The business will operate year round and supply fresh produce to the local community – replacing food that was previously being shipped in from Mexico and California.
The site itself is 1/10 of an acre, but it’s expected to have the same output as a 5 acre piece of land using conventional agriculture methods. 95% of their product is already committed through pre-purchase agreements.
Here are some of the businesses that have jumped onboard:
Rendezvous Bistro
Il Villaggio Osteria
Q Roadhouse
The Kitchen
Jackson Hole Mountain Resort’s five restaurants
Snake River Brewery
St. John’s Medical Center’s Refuge Grill
What makes this project even more exciting is their commitment to employing members of the local community with disabilities. This is apparently a growing concern in Jackson, and so Vertical Harvest will be doing their part to address that.
If you’d like to learn about the design of the facility, check out this article by Fast Company. The team was was very methodical in ensuring that this facility would consume less energy than the status quo of shipping in food from out of state.
The go-live date is this fall (2015). I should probably plan another trip to Jackson.
Over the past week I’ve had 2 separate people ask me my thoughts on the future of the condo market in Toronto. One of them was working on a University study and one of them was trying to figure out what (condo) property managers would look like in the future.
To be clear, the questions weren’t motivated by the typical “bubble” debate that the media loves to headline, rather these were questions about the long term future of condos in this city.
I haven’t written about this topic explicitly, so today I thought I would summarize my responses for the Architect This City community. There’s probably a touch of aspiration in the responses I gave, but it’s more or less what I’m thinking and what I believe has a good chance of happening over the next 10-20 years.
Here are some of my thoughts (not an exhaustive list):
Intensification is going to continue in Toronto and that is going to mean more condominiums and other types of multi-family dwellings. Rental apartments is the product type du jour right now within the real estate community.
As intensification continues, I think we’re going to see a tipping point in the near term with more families opting to have and raise children in condos in the city. Part of this will be driven by a desire to stay in the city (walkable communities), but part of it will also be driven by the economics (i.e. high price) of low-rise housing in the city.
As families begin to fill in condos (not just young single professionals and empty nesters), we’ll see developers and cities respond with more family friendly buildings, amenities, and program choices. This could mean anything from children’s play spaces within buildings to redesigned public spaces and parks.
In line with this shift, I think we’ll also see more sophisticated executions of “mixed-use.” Rather than just stacked uses (retail at the bottom, a few levels of office, and a residential condo tower above), developers and operators are going to start thinking about the ecosystem they are creating. (Related discussion in the comment section of this post.)
It’s probably a bit safe to predict that sustainability will become more important going forward. But I think that as more families and long-term end users opt for condos, that consumers will become more interested in building and energy performance. Technological advancement (both hardware and software) will also give this a boost.
Finally, and this applies somewhat to real estate in general, I believe that we’ll see a lot more openness and transparency all across the industry. There will be much better access to data and information. Similar to above, this will be aided by advances in technology and networks.
Now it’s your turn. What do you think of the above list? And what will the condo market — either in Toronto or in your city — look like in 10-20 years?
A collaboration between architect Andreas Martin-Löf and developer Junior Living, the project contains 124 single occupancy units, each of which has 32 square meters of interior space (that’s about 344 square feet).
The way it was built is quite simple. The modular housing units were fabricated off-site and then inserted on-site into a prefabricated concrete frame. Think bottles going into a wine rack. Here’s a diagram showing how it works:
What’s truly amazing about this project though is how quickly it was built and how cost effective it actually was for end users. Construction started in January 2014 and residents started moving in about 3 months later. The sale prices ranged from €50,000 to €87,000 per unit. That’s roughly $62,000 to $98,000 in US dollars.
I’ve written quite a bit about the advantages of a “rail + property” model when it comes to building public transit. It’s a model that works quite successfully in other parts of the world, such as in Hong Kong.
However, in North America the notion of land value recapture or of transit authorities acting as real estate developers is still very much in its infancy. We’re myopically focused on rail.
Which is why I said about 3 months ago that if the stations along the new Eglinton Crosstown LRT line in midtown Toronto became single storey and single purpose buildings, that we will have missed an enormous city building opportunity.
Since that post I had a number of conversations with the folks over at Metrolinx and I was delighted to learn that there were in fact plans to build additional density on top of the stations. And as of today they’ve gone completely public with that intention.
Metrolinx, with the help of Avison Young, has just issued a request for proposal (RFP) for 4 sites along Eglinton Avenue in the city. Two of them are at Keele Street, one of them is at Weston Road, and the last one is at Bathurst Street. The 4 sites could generate between $14M – $22M.
The objective is to find suitable developer partners to help them build on top of their planned LRT stations. And it’s a step in exactly the right direction for Metrolinx and this city.
The report looks at the physical sorting and separation of advantaged and disadvantaged groups within cities. And it did so across 70,000+ Census tracts in the US and in terms of 3 different dimensions: income, education, and occupation.
Here are the most segregated “large metros” in the US:
And here are some of their broader findings – taken verbatim from page 9 of the study (click here for the full report):
Economic segregation is positively associated with population size and density. It is also positively correlated to two other sets of factors that follow from metro size and density: how people commute to work and the breakdown of liberal versus conservative voters.
Economic segregation tends to be more intensive in high-tech, knowledge-based metros. It is positively correlated with high-tech industry, the creative class share of the workforce, and the share of college grads. In addition, it is associated with two key indicators of diversity, the share of the population that is gay or foreign-born, which tend to coincide with larger, denser and more knowledge-based metros.
Economic segregation is connected to the overall affluence of metros, with positive correlations to average metro wages, income, and economic output per capita.
Race factors in as well. Economic segregation is positively associated with the share of population that is black, Latino, or Asian, and negatively associated with the share that is white.
Economic segregation is associated with income inequality and even more so than with wage inequality. Its effects appear to compound those of economic inequality and may well be more socially and economically deleterious than inequality alone.
The research team also looked at how Canada’s 3 largest metros – Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver – compare to those in the US in terms of segregation.
The finding was that Canadian cities are overall less segregated than US cities, but that it should still be considered an area of concern. The most segregated of Canada’s 3 largest metros was found to be Montreal.
My view is that our economy is going through a profound shift right now. We’re transitioning from the industrial age to the information age. And in its wake, we’re seeing a number of disruptions, one of which appears to be rising inequality and segregation.
That’s not to say that I think this transition is a bad thing (I don’t think it is), but I do think we should be carefully considering and designing our future.
Lloyd’s thesis is basically that Ed is wrong in arguing that reducing the barriers to building is the most effective way to maintain housing affordability; that cities are really made out of flesh, rather than bricks and mortar; and that urbanists need to move beyond the view that a city’s past should be preserved at all costs.
Lloyd then goes on to argue that rather than continuing to over-intensify cities like New York, San Francisco, and Toronto, we should be turning our attention to former powerhouses like Buffalo and trying to figure out how to reinvigorate those cities. The bones are already in place.
Now, I don’t disagree that there’s lots of potential in cities such as a Buffalo and Detroit. I’ve written a lot about Detroit and I’m genuinely rooting for the city. But I don’t think it’s as simple as it sounds to shift our attention, and I don’t agree with all of the critiques of Glaeser’s work.
As important as built form is, cities like Buffalo and Detroit remind us that architecture and buildings alone aren’t enough to build a city. There are countless masterpieces – such as Michigan Central Station in Detroit – that regrettably sit abandoned. You need people and communities.
There’s also a snowball effect.
As a city becomes more successful, there’s a natural tendency for more people to want to be there. It’s no different than the network effect experienced by a social network. A social network without people has no value. But the more people you add to it, the more valuable it becomes and the more difficult it becomes to replace.
So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that people will put up with expensive real estate and small apartments just to live in cities like San Francisco. That’s where they want to be. And as long as the demand to live in those cities is increasing, I continue to believe that it makes sense to build more, not less, housing and to make it reasonably easy to do so.
At the same time, I believe whole heartedly in heritage preservation. As a trained architect, there’s a strong possibility that I would shed an actual tear should a building with heritage value be torn down in my city or in any city in the world.
And that’s why when I was on CBC radio last week I said that neighborhood investment needs to be a balance between preservation and progress. The Twittersphere later blasted me for using the term “progress”, but I think you get my position.
My interpretation of Glaeser’s work has never been that he supports completely erasing a city’s past in order to make way for the future. If that is his position, then I too disagree with it.
My interpretation has instead been that he supports removing unreasonable barriers to development so that cities are able to supply – or can at least try to supply – enough housing to meet growing demand. This also doesn’t exclusively mean high-rise intensification. It could mean removing the barriers in front of things like laneway housing. And I continue to believe that this is a good idea.
I don’t believe that this approach alone will solve all housing problems, but I do think it’s a great place to start.
Earlier this week a good friend of mine sent me a scanned article from this month’s issue of Urban Land Magazine called: Rethinking PADs–Private Accessory Dwellings. He said, I know you have a thing for PADs, so here you go.
PADs, or private accessory dwellings, is simply another term for nanny flat or laneway house. Whatever you want to call it, the concept is the same. It’s about taking a single family house and adding an additional dwelling onto that same lot.
In many cities around the world, this is not allowed. Each lot is to have only one dwelling unit. And that’s because the single family home – particularly in North America – has been considered sacrosanct.
But as I’ve argued and demonstrated before, I think we’re on the cusp of this changing. Here’s a snippet from the Urban Land article (unfortunately, I don’t think the full article is available online):
“If PADs can be added in appropriate scale and number, existing housing, zoned land, and current infrastructure could be efficiently used to increase housing supply and to stabilize and even reduce housing prices. Moreover, since PADs are by definition smaller than existing dwellings, they will attract both younger and older residents who will enrich the intergenerational composition of both urban and suburban communities.”
I’m happy to see Urban Land (the magazine of the Urban Land Institute) giving this topic some air time. There are a number of social, economic, and environmental benefits to intensifying single family neighborhoods. And the most progressive cities in the world are already doing it.
What is your city’s position on accessory dwellings? Toronto doesn’t support them. But there are instances where people have gotten them approved.
Image: Kensington Market Laneway House, Toronto via Flickr
Last Tuesday the app launched in 10 cities across North America. So if you’re in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Toronto, Vancouver, or Washington D.C., you can go ahead and download it right now.
The biggest “wow factor” is probably the augmented reality feature that allows you to hold your phone up and see transit information overlaid on top of the street in front of you.
But more fundamentally, the real potential lies in the platform’s ability to collect data on the way people move in cities and on how transit lines are performing, so that it can be fed back to improve overall efficiency.
That’s why the company is also working with cities to give them 24/7 analytics and reporting on how every bus, car, and train is performing in their networks.
My hope is that with better data at our disposal, we’ll be able to elevate the discussions around transit and transit planning. Without great data, it’s too easy for these discussion to become political.
Back in 2006 when I was fresh out of architecture school and looking for work, I knocked on the door of a design company based in London with my polished resume in hand. I was sleeping on a friend’s couch at the time and the company seemed like a perfect fit for me – so I went for it.
There’s no happy ending to this story though – because I didn’t get past the front door that day – but there’s never any harm in trying. As my friend told me the morning I went: fortune favors the bold.
They call themselves “a residential and hotel design company”, but their model is actually more unique than that. Founded in 1999 by John Hitchcox (a property developer) and Philippe Starck (a rockstar designer), the firm partners with local real estate developers around the world and creates value through design, branding, and marketing expertise – as well as through celebrity names like Philippe Starck and Jade Jagger.
What makes their model interesting is that, unlike the real estate developers they partner with, they’re not assuming the same level of risk (unless, of course, they co-invest). They get paid (well) for the design services and marketing expertise they provide, as well as the brand equity that they bring.
This is similar to what Donald Trump does with some (most?) of his developments now. Want the Trump name on your building? Pay $X. Want Philippe Starck at your condo sales launch? Pay $Y.
When I was in architecture school, I used to wonder why we didn’t talk about the importance of branding and marketing. I thought we should. Which is probably why I ended up in business school afterwards.
I think there’s a lot of potential in overlaps and hybrid business models, which is why I was excited to learn today that YOO has just launched a new architectural practice called YOO Architecture.
Though this blog is focused on cities and geared towards city builders, I cover a lot of different topics.
I talk about real estate, architecture, planning, transportation, technology, and even personal topics. My primary goal is to create a worldwide community of people passionate about building great cities, but at the same time it’s still a personal blog.
Usually I just write about whatever is currently on my mind. I never queue up posts and so each post is written the day of. But sometimes I wonder if I’m delivering on what you, the readers, really want to read and talk about.
So today I thought I would simply ask: what would you like to see more of on ATC in 2015? Let me know in the comment section below and I’ll try my best to deliver.
