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

Month: August 2020

  • Off the grid

    Two things struck me today.

    First, I read Bloomberg Green’s daily newsletter (Nathaniel Bullard) and came across the following statistic. In 2001, the world installed 290 megawatts of solar generating capacity. This year, the world is likely to install more than 100 gigawatts of solar — that’s 350x more per year than we were installing 19 years ago. You can also see how things have changed by looking at the above chart showing wind and solar asset financing per year.

    Second, I read about Fred Wilson’s SunPower Solar system and how, since May, he has been able to satisfy 91.5% of his home’s electrical needs via solar (this includes an electric vehicle). In fact, during the month of May when temperatures were a bit cooler, he had a surplus. He was producing more than he was consuming, and so he was selling that excess production back into the grid. It wasn’t until the summer months and higher AC usage that he started having a shortfall.

    Now I don’t know where his house is located or what its roof looks like, but it is interesting to consider both the macro and micro scale. 91.5% signals to me that it shouldn’t be much longer before many people and many homes no longer need to draw any power from the grid. That’s going to be a game changer.

    Chart: Bloomberg Green

  • Ecommerce during lockdown

    The United States and the United Kingdom recently published some official statistics on the impacts that this pandemic has had on ecommerce. The above chart is from Benedict Evans and he has some more over here. It’s worth a click through. What is clear is that lockdown forced a whole bunch of adoption and accelerated trends that were already underway. More people turned to shopping online. The UK went from 20% ecommerce penetration to over 30%. And the US went from 17% to about 22%. What is also clear is that grocery has demonstrated to be exceptionally resilient. Most physical retailers saw a decline in sales during lockdown. Grocery proved to be a notable exception. But what is unclear is how much of this adoption will actually stick. The UK is reporting monthly (as opposed to quarterly for the US) and already you can see signs of a possible reversion. My guess is that — provided we don’t see another major lockdown — there will be a meaningful reversion before the trend line resumes its march.

  • The great balcony debate — revisited

    Over the years, I have written a few times about the great balcony debate. It’s a discussion that comes up time and time again as those of us in the building industry go through the process of designing new residential buildings. One the one hand there are the arguments that balconies don’t really get used all that much and that they are bad for the environment (thermal bridging through the slabs). And on the other hand there’s the argument that, regardless of whether or not they actually get used, they form an important part of the buying/renting decision. Usually the former is made by architects and engineers and the latter is made by sales and marketing teams.

    Back in 2016, I remarked that I was starting to see more Juliet balconies across Toronto (could have been some sort of bias at work — like when you’re shopping for a new car and then all you can see is that new car). Regardless, there are countless examples of architects and developers omitting balconies and finding creative ways to connect inside and out. But given that this pandemic has forced us to reconsider and reallocate how we use space in our cities, it’s probably worth revisiting the great balcony debate. Has COVID-19 changed how we view outdoor space? And if so, will it last?

    I’ve decided to start with a Twitter survey (see above tweet) and then either do a long-form article or a series of posts on the topic. If you have any thoughts that you would like to share (ideally before I write), please leave a comment below or on Twitter.

  • Home listings are up 96% in San Francisco

    A recent market report from Zillow has found that urban and suburban housing markets in the US haven’t actually diverged all that much as a result of this pandemic. Despite what you might be reading in the news, Zillow’s national listing data does not seem to suggest that an urban exodus might be underway. Suburban and rural home listings are seeing about the same attention (views) as they were last year. And the rates of appreciation seem to be holding. As of June, annual home value growth was 4.3% for urban areas and 4.1% for suburban areas.

    There are, however, some exceptions and local nuances. Rents in urban zip codes have fallen more compared to their suburban counterparts. This seems to make intuitive sense given that I would have expected demand to be less from young professionals, students, and immigrants. Many cities probably also saw a bunch of their short-term rental inventory flip over to the long-term rental market (how much, I don’t know). But my view is that this will prove to be a short-term phenomenon.

    There are also some markets that have performed quite differently. San Francisco is one of those cases. The city proper has seen home prices fall 4.9% and inventory (listings) increase by 96% year-over-year. This is a massive outlier. If I were to speculate as to why this is the case, it would be that (1) this was brewing even before COVID-19 and (2) the tech community is perhaps more convinced of this whole working from home thing. Why remain in expensive San Francisco? It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. For a full copy of Zillow’s urban-suburban market report, click here.

    Image: Zillow

  • The car revolution is being powered by software

    Frederic Filloux publishes a regular newsletter called the Monday Note. It’s generally all about tech and new emerging business models. His latest post, called “Code, on wheels,” is about Tesla and the software revolution that is currently underway in the car industry. And it’s a good reminder of just how unique Tesla appears to be as a car company and how software is bound to infiltrate all aspects of our economy. Already you’re hearing people make a distinction around “pure” software companies. This is necessary because of how ubiquitous it has become.

    Here is a a longish excerpt from Filloux’s article:

    But the ultimate leap in value will be the creation of an application ecosystem. The limit will only be the imagination of app creators. As an example, airport operators are likely to develop apps to manage car traffic and passenger flows. Here is a use case: Your flight departing from San Jose Airport leaves in an hour. Your dual app system — one in your phone, the other in the car — checks the flight status, the gate, and the traffic. It notifies you when it’s time to leave. Once in the vicinity of the airport, the app guides you to the parking space nearest to the gate. An alternative and slightly more futuristic scenario involves you dropping your car in front of the terminal, then letting the autopilot send the car to the long-term parking lot a few miles away (this will soon become feasible as geofenced environments such as airports will be well-suited for Level 4 autonomous driving).

    Again, this implies major changes in the way car software is currently handled. These scenarios require the car and the phone apps working seamlessly, exchanging data in real-time with the airlines, the airport, the navigation system of the car, the parking infrastructure, and eventually, the autopilot. We are not there yet, but by that time, the dust will have settled: either carmakers will have developed their own OS — along with the SDKs to foster the development of third-party apps — and/or, tech giants will have taken-over, leveraging their current market positions in the phone sector to impose their own norms. I always thought that Apple had that in mind when it hired legions of engineers for its Titan project and filed applications for self-driving cars to the California Department of Motor Vehicles. I doubt that they completely gave up on the idea of replicating what they achieved for the 500 billion smartphone market with the 3 trillion dollar car sector.

    There are many in the planning world who are quick to dismiss autonomous electric vehicles as being more of the same. They’re still cars, right? For better or for worse, the internal combustion engine was massively transformational to cities — just as previous advances in transportation were. But what comes next is still mostly unknown because, even if you assume that autonomy is a foregone conclusion, it’s unclear how this and an app ecosystem could change how “cars” function in our cities. What will be the spatial impacts?

    It is, however, clear to me that when things do start to really change, it will be because of software.

    Photo by Jannis Lucas on Unsplash

  • The urbanization of families

    Toronto has more people living in apartments than not. Looking at 2016 census data, the City of Toronto has about 1,112,930 occupied private dwellings and the breakdown between apartments (both lower and higher than 5 storeys) and grade-related housing is roughly 60/40. If you look at what’s been built more recently, the split is closer to 80/20. From 1996 to 2014, about 78% of all housing completions in the city were condominiums/apartments.

    So what is obvious to me is that the City of Toronto is becoming more dense, rather than less dense, and that family housing is destined to become more urban. As of 2011, there were 10,145 more families with children living in apartments/condominiums in the city compared to 15 years earlier. By comparison, the number of families with children living in low-rise housing remained more or less flat over this same time period.

    Of course, what this data doesn’t speak to is the number of people and families that may have opted to leave the City of Toronto for the suburbs — driving until they qualify for the kind of housing product that they would like to consume. The number of children living in higher density housing might be increasing within the city, but we probably shouldn’t ignore the pull toward the suburbs that still exists during family formation.

    Cities around the world are working to make their urban environments more suitable to families and young children. Here in Toronto we have something known as the Growing Up Guidelines. But the focus seems to be largely on design considerations — think playrooms and stroller-friendly foyers. That’s crucial, but it’s not everything. There are also very real economic realities to consider.

    The average price of remaining condo inventory in the Greater Toronto Area last quarter was nearly $1,100 psf. That puts a family-sized 1,000 sf suite at $1.1 million — and a lot more if you’re in a central neighborhood. The average would be closer to $1.5 million downtown. Obviously not all families can afford this. So there’s an affordability challenge. It’s one thing for the critics to say that developers should be building larger suites, but the market needs to be there.

    Another consideration is that of financing. Most developers rely on construction financing in order to build their projects. And in order to build a new condominium, there is typically a requirement to pre-sell a certain number of suites (revenue is the actual governor). This is generally a lot easier to do with smaller suites and with investor suites because these buyers tend to be more comfortable waiting out construction.

    Families, on the other hand, usually have a more immediate time horizon. It’s harder to forecast when the need will arise and it may not be financially viable to do that pre-emptively. And so I would argue that in addition to having an affordability challenge, we also have a financing structure in place that biases the type of homes that get built. There are, of course, advantages to this model. Pre-sales are a way for lenders to mitigate risk. It helps to ensure that the market doesn’t get ahead of itself. But there are side effects.

    Despite all this, we are seeing more families with children in higher density housing. Anecdotally, I see it happening in elevators with the number of strollers. This trend is destined to continue, but the winds are not entirely at the back of this shift.

  • Non-consensus thinking

    The venture capital industry likes to talk about the importance of investing in ideas that are and turn out to be both non-consensus and successful. The idea here is that if an idea or opportunity is already consensus, then there’s too much money flooding into that space and it becomes too difficult to make money. This is particularly true in venture capital where a select few companies usually end up generating most of the returns. This is a high risk business. Supposedly, even the best VCs end up having to write off a big portion of their deals.

    But I don’t think that this logic need only apply to venture capital. In real estate development, you are often faced with similar situations. For example, if an area is already consensus — that is, it is already considered to be highly desirable — then capital is going to naturally flow into it and land prices will be relatively high. These high land prices might be justified by the revenue side of your pro forma, or they might not be. I know many developers who avoid “core” locations simply because the land is too much and the margins are too little.

    On the other hand, if an area is non-consensus — that is, you’re not sure people will want to rent or buy new space in the area — then the land prices should reflect this. But here’s the thing. What you’re doing is trading, among other things, a lower land price for greater market risk. Because the non-consensus bet could turn out to be either successful or unsuccessful. People will either want to occupy space here or they won’t. And remember, by definition, it being non-consensus means that most people believe they won’t — or at least not at the prices you might need in order to make the math work.

    What all of this means is that if you’re right about something that most people think is wrong, then you have the opportunity to do quite well. (Though I am not suggesting that you need to follow this framework in all situations.) This is on my mind right now because it feels to me that there are certain consensus opinions emerging as a result of this pandemic. For example, opinions around the demise of office space and the demise of downtown living. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know that I think these death-of-the-city predictions are largely bullshit.

    I could be wrong. Or I could be right.

  • Azaleas — L-shaped infill housing

    This is an interesting infill housing project in Villa Allende, Argentina. Designed by Studio LZ, the community contains seven homes, built across a 600 square meter site. Each L-shaped home is 63 square meters and hugs a private courtyard space (many of which have an outdoor BBQ). On the main floor of each home are the kitchen and living areas. And on the second floor are two bedrooms, as well as a second bathroom.

    It’s a simple but clever design. Looking at a plan of the project, you can see that, despite its compactness, the L-shaped houses have been arranged in such a way that there are no direct facing conditions. The courtyards and window exposures alternate. It’s almost as if they are Tetris pieces that have been pulled apart. The result is a dense community that still manages to offer some of the benefits of low-rise housing.

    Photos by Gonzalo Viramonte

  • Project Profile: Gusto 501 by PARTISANS

    I finally visited Gusto 501 over the weekend. The place is amazing — both the food and the architecture. And I don’t know about you, but the food always seems to taste better when you’re surrounded by great design. If you haven’t yet been, I would strongly encourage you to go. Designed by PARTISANS for restaurateur Janet Zuccarini, it’s a 6,700 square foot multi-level complex made for the consumption of Italian food and drink. Now, I could go on about its elaborate clay walls, its vast double height spaces, and its massive operable glass facade (supposedly it’s one of the biggest anywhere). But really the best thing to do here is just show you. So here you are. All photos by Nic Lehoux. Architecture by PARTISANS. (Don’t mind the snow. It’s actually lovely in Toronto right now.)

  • The Copenhagen kolonihave

    Well this is an interesting concept. One part allotment garden and one part summer home. Copenhagen’s kolonihave is a community of small homes and gardens within biking distance of Copenhagen’s city center. A place to get away and maybe plant some fresh mint for mojitos. It shares some similarities with the Toronto Islands (land trust) in that the owners own their home, but lease the land. Except in the case of Toronto you’re not allowed to use your island residence as a summer home. If you want to live on the islands, you need to tough out the winters and make it your principal residence. Regardless of the ownership structure, there is something clearly endearing about these small homes and gardens. And I bet that there would be a lot of demand for something like this if it could be done at any sort of scale.