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.
Every quarter, Apartment List publishes something that they call their Rental Migration Report. What they do is use search data from their website to determine where their (registered) users are hoping to move to and from. Their first report of 2020 is now out and below is their list of the most attractive US metros. It is based on search data from June to December, 2019.
Now, it’s important to note that this is really only a form of intent — taken from one particular website. This list may not, and probably doesn’t, accurately mirror how and where people are actually migrating within the US. But it is still interesting to see what is top of mind for Apartment List’s users. (If there were multiple search inquiries during a visit to the site, they counted the first metro area.)
Beautiful mountains. Great snowboarding/skiing. And a burgeoning tech ecosystem. I am not at all surprised to see Denver at the top of this list.
After I landed in Vancouver yesterday, I opened up my inbox and found a cease and desist letter on behalf of the Ontario Association of Architects. The OAA had an issue with me using the following text description on my blog: “I’m an architect-trained and tech-obsessed real estate developer based in Toronto.” More specifically, they had a problem with “architect-trained.” They were of the opinion that I was “holding myself out as an architect.”
When I wrote that text description many years ago, I was actually trying to be sensitive to the fact that, because I’m not licensed, I’m not allowed to refer to myself as an architect. I hold a professional master’s degree in architecture, but I do not hold a certificate of practice in Ontario. The text description I chose was actually meant to communicate that I’m a real estate developer who cares deeply about and sees the value in great design.
The OAA and their lawyers clearly read it differently. So I have removed the derivative “architect” language from this blog. Frankly, it’s not a big deal to me. And in the almost 6 years that I have been writing this blog, I don’t think anyone has ever reached out to me thinking that I was a practicing architect. To be clear: I am not an architect. In case any of you are curious, here is a copy of the letter that I received.
Earlier this week I wrote about the age groups that are most likely to live in an urban neighborhood in the United States. It was people in their 20s and, to a lesser extent, baby boomers. The data I was relying on used population density to measure urbanity.
Interestingly enough, the demand for co-living seems to mirror this. (Feel free to disagree.) From what I’ve been told, the fastest growing co-living segments are young people recently out of school and retirees. Intuitively this makes sense to me.
If we think back to teachings of Clayton Christensen (another recent post), we “hire” products and services because we have “jobs” that need to be done. In the case of a McDonald’s milkshake that job might be a breakfast that’s appropriate for a long and boring commute.
In the case of co-living, and in urban neighborhoods in general, one of those jobs has got to be social connections. (Again, feel free to disagree.) We do also know that single person households are increasing in many cities. Are these phenomenons related? How big could co-living get?
Note: This post was written on my phone on a flight, which is why there are no links or images.
I don’t love how this WSJ article starts. It seems to place the blame on technology companies for “pumping the west coast full of choking traffic and expensive homes.”
But I do really like these charts:
They show the gap between the increase in labor force and the increase in housing supply across the various cities in Silicon Valley.
The solid line is the percentage increase in labor force since 2010 and the dotted (bottom) line is the percentage increase in housing units since 2010.
The darker the color, the bigger the gap.
Many new jobs. Lots of wealth created. Not nearly enough housing. And yes, there have also been a number of negative externalities.
The full article is definitely worth a read. It’s about Google’s development plans for downtown San Jose.
The North American rule of thumb is that young people — specifically people in their 20s — are the most likely to to live in an urban neighborhood. After that it’s all down hill and, broadly speaking, the percentages decline. But at some point, much later in life, the data suggests that there is a reversal and people start to return to urban neighborhoods, albeit not to the same extent. Part of the explanation for this is that as people age they start to look to more walkable neighborhoods where they don’t need to get a car to get around.
But in this recent NY Times article, Jed Kolko points out two interesting trends. One, the “urban boomer” appears to be on the decline in the US. In 1990, about 21.6% of Americans aged 54 to 72 lived in an urban neighborhood (categorized by density). As of 2018, this number had dropped to around 17.8%. And two, the age at which there is a reversal (and people start returning to denser neighborhoods) is also increasing. Perhaps because people are living longer.
Jed’s conclusion: American boomers, today, are actually less urban than previous generations.
Witold Rybczynski’s recent blog post about architecture’s “curious business model” gets at one of the core challenges of new construction: “Every project is, in effect, a custom job; there are no real economies of scale.” There are also no reoccurring cash flows for the architect, Witold explains, unlike a writer who might earn ongoing royalties or a business owner whose wealth will grow as the business grows.
There are two items to discuss here: (1) The “curious business model” used in the practice of architecture and (2) the inefficiencies of construction.
The first one is not unique to architecture. You could say the same thing about the planning and real estate lawyers who also work on new buildings. But I take Witold’s point in that even a painter’s work could appreciate in value after it’s done, whereas there’s typically no mechanism for any of this to accrue (to the architect) in the world of architecture.
When I was young, I was told that there are two ways to make money. You can either trade your time for money or you can own assets that make you money. An example of the latter might be a farm where the tenant farmer pays you rent every month. You’re not trading your time by actually doing the farming, you just own the asset.
This may seem obvious, but it’s fundamental. And it’s one of the reasons why, when I was in architecture school, I admired the practices of people like Jonathan Segal out of San Diego. Jonathan is one of the pioneers of the “architect as developer” approach. He simply became his own client and started building his own projects.
Moving on to topic number two.
Everyone in the business of building new buildings is looking for repeatable methodologies. Many have thought: How do we make the construction of buildings more like the assembly of cars? How do we create a standardized kit of parts? And that has lead to longstanding efforts around prefabrication. Today, as you know, we are also looking at how 3D printing might make this easier/cheaper.
In some ways, that is happening. There are examples of prefabrication and panelization, and there are developers who are using this approach. (See H+ME Technology.) But for the most part, we still build on site and it’s still a messy process with lots of waste and inefficiencies. If there was a cheaper and more effective way to do it, the industry would certainly move in that direction. Eventually that will happen.
In the meantime, we will continue building our prototypes.
This morning I got caught up on what’s happening with the coronavirus that emerged in Wuhan, China, but that is now spreading quickly across mainland China. It’s unsettling. As of Saturday, there were over 1,287 confirmed cases in mainland China and 41 deaths. Right now, the belief is that the virus emerged from a seafood and meat market in Wuhan.
The Wuhan virus belongs to a family of viruses known as coronaviruses, which includes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) that broke out in 2003 and killed 44 people in Canada alone. Typically, these viruses have jumped from animals (such as bats and pigs) to humans. The WSJ has a good summary of what is currently known about this coronavirus strain.
All of this has overwhelmed hospitals in Wuhan and the videos accounts are heartbreaking to watch. The government has responded by vowing to build two new hospitals in order to fight the outbreak. But get this: the projected completion times are 10 and 15 days, respectively. The second hospital, to be called Leishenshan Hospital, is expected to house about 1,300 beds.
I can’t even get a government signature on a single legal document within 10 to 15 days, and so it’s unfathomable to imagine building an entire hospital within that same period of time. Some of the media is calling this “infrastructure propaganda.” i.e. Look over here at all we’re doing for you. But there’s clearly a need and, if ever there was a time to move with a sense of urgency, now would be it.
Management guru Clayton M. Christensen died this week. Sadly, he was only 67 (leukaemia). A professor at Harvard Business School, Christensen was best known for probably two things: His work on disruptive innovation and his teachings on how to live a more fulfilling life. If you’ve read anything on innovation and disruption, I am sure you’ve come across the work of Christensen. He had a way of explaining things by reframing them. Here is a short video about the “job” of a McDonald’s milkshake. And here is another one where he explains the cycle of disruptive innovations, sustaining innovations, and efficiency innovations. Both videos are worth watching.
If you end up taking the time to read the articles, you’ll be reminded of a couple of things about the way cities work. One, the way we use buildings changes over time. Two, the kind of architecture we pursue is always a reflection of the socioeconomic milieu at that particular moment in time. And three, the way we perceive buildings also changes over time.
In the case of Amsterdam’s canal houses, their original function was live/work. They were residences, but they were also warehouses. Amsterdam’s maritime dominance meant that it was more profitable to store things, instead of just house people. (Sometimes as much as half of the house was dedicated to storage.) Trade patterns had moved from the Mediterranean up to the North Atlantic, and that worked out pretty well for the Dutch in the 17th century.
In the case of Berlin, their typical mid-rise “rental barracks” went from reviled to coveted as the buildings aged, elevators made the penthouses desirable, and people started to appreciate some of their idiosyncrasies. It’s an example of what I was getting at when I spoke to the CBC for this article about Toronto’s skyscraper boom. Some things, including buildings, take time. They need to settle in.
One of the most important rules in personal finance is that you should live within your means. Sure you might be stretching to invest or start a business but, generally speaking, people who specialize in this sort of thing (which is not me) will tell you that it’s probably a good idea to spend less than you make.
The same is, of course, true in business. Businesses generally try to make more money than they spend. Similar to what might happen in personal finance, there are instances where a company might decide to forgo current cash flow for future cash flow. i.e. Invest in future growth. But at some point, not making any money needs to stop and the company will need to post a profit.
All of this probably sounds dreadfully obvious, but I often think of this very simple principle whenever I hear someone talking about something that should be done, but isn’t being done. Developers should be using triple glazed windows in all of their projects. The government needs to build a new subway line from here to over here. And the list goes on.
There’s no question that triple glazed windows will perform better than double glazed windows. And there’s no question that a subway right outside of my single family home would be pretty darn convenient for my personal needs. But all of these things, unfortunately, cost money. They are expenses. And unless the revenues are there to support them, they, funny enough, tend not to happen.
The same is true in personal finance. I should have a yacht in the Mediterranean. Why? Because having a yacht in the Mediterranean is typically better than not having a yacht in the Mediterranean. Sadly, the top line of my income statement tells me to, instead, focus my attention on the Toronto Island Ferry Docks.
Update: One of our engineers has advised me that triple glazing is not always better from a noise control standpoint. Laminated and heavier glass typically performs better from this perspective.
