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.
Google Maps recently introduced a new feature that allows you to search for electric vehicle charging stations by plug type. Here’s what it looks like when I tried it here in Toronto:
While helpful, it demonstrates two things. One, there are too many plug types and that’s a problem for EV adoption. Nissans and Mitsubishis use CHAdeMO, BMWs use CCS, and Tesla has its own proprietary plug, for example.
Two, this is one the main reasons why Tesla is so far ahead when it comes to EVs. They’ve been very purposeful in building out an expansive network of charging stations so as to avoid what is very clearly a chicken-and-egg problem. You need great EVs and then places to charge said vehicles.
As of January 2021, Tesla operates over 2,105 Supercharger stations worldwide with over 1,094 stations in North America, 589 in Europe, and 423 in Asia/Pacific. This is how you start to compete when there are over 160,000 gas stations in the US alone.
There are many development narratives that I don’t quite understand. (I’m thinking of Toronto, but you can probably replace Toronto with any number of global cities for this discussion.) One is the belief that our transit network is full and so no new development should be allowed in certain locations, next to certain transit stations. The thrust of this argument is that additional transit capacity must be added before any new development is allowed to occur. This might sound logical, except it ignores the fact that the need for new housing doesn’t magically disappear because subway cars are thought to be too busy during the morning rush.
Transit systems are also a network, and so does this mean that no more development should be allowed to happen anywhere in the city/region? Or is the goal to simply move development off of higher order transit and into lower-density areas so that the future residents in these new buildings can either take buses to the transit stations that were previously deemed to be at capacity or drive their cars everywhere? (Our highways have excess capacity during the morning rush, right?)
The second narrative that I find perplexing is that new developments don’t give back in any way. Above is a chart showing residential development charges in the City of Toronto, as of November 1, 2020. This chart outlines the fees that every developer must pay when building new residential, though it is important to keep in mind that there are many other government fees and charges that form part of almost every new development. These are things like parkland dedication and separately negotiated community benefits. But for the purposes of this post, let’s just focus on development charges (aka impact fees).
Assume you’re building a 400 unit apartment building, consisting of 240 one bedroom suites (60%) and 160 two and three bedroom suites (40%). Based on the above chart, your development charge bill would be:
240 one bedroom suites x $33,358 per unit = $8,005,920
160 two and three bedroom suites x $51,103 per unit = $8,176,480
For a total of $16,182,400.
But it’s important to keep in mind that these are the rates as of November 1, 2020. They will almost certainly go up by the time these charges become payable for your 400 unit apartment building. By how much you ask? Well according to Urban Capital’s most recent issue of Site Magazine, which compared a development pro forma from 2005 to 2020, development charges in the City of Toronto have increased by about 3,244% during this time period. (The S&P 500 was up about 220% during this same time.) These are obligatory fees that contribute to everything from transit and parks to subsidized housing and municipal services. (The line items above.)
So it strikes me that there are other more productive questions that we could and should be asking ourselves. Such as, why is it that our transit/mobility infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with new development and new housing demand? What are we going to do to fix that immediately? Why are we not taxing the things we don’t want (like traffic congestion) so that we have more resources for the things we do want (like transit and housing)? And most importantly, what is the best way for all of us to work together so that we can create the absolute greatest global city in the world?
This is an incredible house in Hamilton, Ontario by Toronto-based architecture practice Partisans. The central idea is clearly its folding roof, which dips down to accommodate a set of stairs that lead to the roof of the house. At the same time, the sloping roof creates a wave-like enclosure for the indoor/outdoor pool that sits below it.
Partisans is, in my opinion, one of the most creative firms practicing in the city today. This house is a good example of that. I also admire their ability to go deep into materials and construction methods, which is something you need to do when you design forms like the ones you’re seeing here. For more photos and information, check out this Dezeen article about the project.
Back in 2006, Paul Graham penned an essay about how to be Silicon Valley. Since then, it seems like every city on the planet has tried to replicate the successes of the Valley. At the time, his argument was pretty simple. Geography used to be destiny when it came to cities. New York City, for example, is arguably what it is today because of its geography and its deep harbor, which created a natural competitive advantage compared to other east coast cities such as Boston and Philadelphia. But this, he argues, has become far less relevant. Now, you can create a great city pretty much anywhere. So what are the necessary ingredients?
Paul argued that you only really need two kinds of people to create a technology hub: rich people and nerds. You need people creating new things and you need rich people to fund those new ideas. That’s it. So in theory, if you could just dump a bunch of these kinds of people in one place — Nunavut? — you’d perhaps get unicorns coming out the other end. He goes on to say that Miami is a perfect example of a city that has lots of the former, but very few of the latter. It has lots of rich people, but, in his words, it’s not the kind of place that nerds like. So it is/was not a good startup city. (I’m a nerd and I like Miami.)
But the year is now 2021 and a global pandemic seems to be helping to change this dynamic. Every tech entrepreneur and/or investor now seems to want to move to either Austin or Miami. To that end, SoftBank recently announced that it has earmarked $100 million for startups that are based in Miami or that plan to be based in Miami in the near future. It’s perhaps a good testament to the momentum that seems to be developing around the startup scene in the city, which is something that their mayor has been incredibly vocal about.
But here’s something to consider. Was Paul right about the two requisite ingredients for a successful startup hub? And if so, does Miami now have enough nerds? Maybe this recent influx of people was just what it was missing.
In the world of finance, carried interest is the share of the profits in an investment that a manager (of said investment) earns in excess of what they may have contributed to the partnership. For example, let’s say that a manager is putting in 10% of the cash that is required for a particular project. If the project goes really well, the manager, through carried interest, could earn more than their 10% share of the profits. Put another way, it is a performance fee that is intended to incentivize and reward the manager.
Today I learned (credit to Lucas Manuel) that the origins of carried interest go all the way back to the Middle Ages. The concept and term supposedly came about because the captains of European ships would take a share of the profit from the “carried goods” that they were transporting. This was to compensate them for the work and for the risk of sailing all over the place. Keep in mind that, just like today, any number of things could have gone wrong. Maybe you don’t make it or maybe pirates steal all of your goodies.
There is also a compelling argument (made here) that this simple concept has been instrumental, since the Medieval Period, in improving the fortunes of many, but most notably those that weren’t born into riches and that were starting out with limited means. Carried interest allowed Medieval merchants to (1) initiate sailing ventures for which they didn’t have the requisite money and (2) earn a disproportionate amount of the profits so that they could more quickly improve their socioeconomic position.
Do good work, take on some risk, and then hopefully make a few bucks. That’s still how things work today. Supposedly David Rubenstein, cofounder of The Carlyle Group, also talks about the origins of carried interest in his recent appearance on the Tim Ferriss Show. I say supposedly because podcasts generally take too long for me and I haven’t listened to it.
At the beginning of this month, Restoration Hardware announced that it was making a $105 million equity investment in a development project in Aspen, Colorado. When completed, the project will house what the company is calling their “first RH ecosystem,” which will include an RH Gallery, RH Guesthouse, RH Bath House & Spa, RH Restaurants, and RH Residences. All of this is fascinating to me from an experiential retail, brand ecosystem, and real estate development standpoint. It also reinforces my belief that differentiated hotels and high-touch hospitality aren’t going anywhere, notwithstanding the fact that Airbnb is arguably now the largest “hotel company” in the world. People are hungry for these kinds of curated experiences, and they’re going to be positively starving once we get through this pandemic.
Aspen has been selected to develop the first RH ecosystem inclusive of an RH Bespoke Gallery, RH Guesthouse, RH Bath House & Spa, RH Restaurants, and our first RH Residences. The RH Gallery on Galena, currently under development, will offer two floors of the RH Interiors, Contemporary, Modern, and RH Ski House collections, plus Interior Design, Architecture, and Landscape Architecture services. Additionally, the Gallery will include a transparent glass rooftop restaurant with views of Aspen Mountain, a Wine & Barista Bar, plus two private dining rooms with fireplaces and retractable roofs. The RH Guesthouse at the Historic Crystal Palace, also currently under construction, will feature guest suites with fireplaces, a live fire restaurant, wine vault, private rooftop pool and dining terrace with views of Aspen Mountain, and the brand’s first RH Bath House & Spa. The RH Residences at the Historic Boomerang Lodge will include up to five fully furnished four bedroom custom homes, and The RH Residence on Red Mountain will be a fully furnished six bedroom home with multiple terraces and an infinity pool with views of downtown, Aspen Mountain and Independence Pass. All of the RH Residences will include membership to the RH Bath House & Spa, plus priority reservations at the brand’s restaurants and private dining venues.
The WSJ announced today that smart-lock company Latch is getting SPAC’ed (i.e. going public). The deal, which is sponsored by commercial real estate firm Tishman Speyer, values the company at about $1.56 billion.
One of the things that is attractive about Latch is that they’re a lot more than just a smart-lock company. They really bill themselves as being a “full-building operating system.” Their platform, called LatchOS, offers everything from access door solutions to guest/delivery management.
If you operate a multi-family apartment building, one of the first things that you would like to do away with is all of your suite entry keys. They are a pain to manage. So smart entry locks are a huge value-add. I guess that’s why 1 in 10 apartments in the US are now being built with LatchOS, according to the company.
Another thing that is attractive about Latch is that they operate as a SaaS/subscription service. So reoccurring revenue and (probably) a higher multiple. Given that changing all of the locks in a big apartment building is no simple task, there are also some natural barriers to churn.
To learn more about today’s announcement, you can check out the WSJ or TechCrunch.
“Unexpected approaches for the future of our urban spaces.” Publisher Gestalten has a new book out that you can pre-order called, Vertical Living: Compact Architecture for Urban Spaces. The book is not about tall buildings, despite what the title might suggest, but rather about “impossibly slender homes” in narrow and tight urban spaces. As many of you know, I have long been a fan of compact and creative homes. One, they force creativity. It’s like designing a boat (not that I have done that before). Every inch matters. And two, it is about seeing opportunity where others don’t.
Sometimes we miss these opportunities because of cultural biases. We believe that a home should look and behave a certain way. But these viewpoints are not necessarily universal. They vary across cities and they can even vary within cities. As Toronto and many other cities around the world try and figure out how to deliver the so-called “missing middle,” we are going to need to open ourselves up to some of what’s in this book — namely the unexpected. New housing solutions that don’t fit within certain neat and tidy definitions.
We’ve done this before with laneway suites. Formerly an illegal housing type, Toronto is now in the midst of what feels like a laneway housing boom. I don’t know exactly how many are under construction or have been completed under the city’s new policies, but I would wager that the uptake has been strong. And over time, this new housing typology is going to reshape how we think about our laneways. They will evolve along with the new uses that are now beginning to flank them. The unexpected will become the expected.
When I was in graduate school, my plan was to create a vertically integrated design and development company. I loved designing things and wanted to remain close to those sorts of details, but I had already decided that I wasn’t going to be an architect in the traditional sense and that I was going to be a developer. And so my objective was to figure out a way to combine everything under one roof. How could we be designers, but also be the entrepreneurs that make buildings happen?
In some ways, Mackay Laneway House is a manifestation of that model. Through a partnership with Gabriel Fain Architects, we (Globizen Studio) have been heavily involved on the design side. Gabriel did all of the drawings and the overall architecture, but we weighed in (more than your typical client), selected most of the FF&E, and even designed things like the kitchen (with Scavolini) and the exterior signage. I wouldn’t call it true vertical integration, but we did start to blur the lines between architect/designer and developer.
One of the interesting things about this approach is that it begins to create some consistency and a bit of a branded product. The hope is that when Mackay Laneway House is fully complete, it will read as a Globizen project, which is not that dissimilar from what David Wex of Urban Capital was talking about in this recent podcast. Their projects are a specific kind of product. They generally repeat it, and if that’s not what you’re interested in, then you don’t buy an Urban Capital home.
But this also raises an important question: what is the role of architects and architecture in the case of buildings as very specific products? (This is something that we have discussed before on the blog.) Is the job of the architect to create an interesting exterior shell that then gets populated on the inside by a specific product offering? Or is it even worse, is architecture sometimes just an “empty vessel” that gets interior design and a brand slapped onto it? In some cases and with some projects, it does feel this way.
I am a firm believer in the value of architecture and design. An “empty vessel” is not architecture. It is, well, an empty vessel. And that is not what I aim for in any of the projects that I’m involved in. Creativity, function, thoughtfulness and, yes, beauty, are all important. At the same time, I think this is a valuable debate. These sorts of questions are helpful in dissecting the architecture/development value chain. And so I would be interested in hearing your thoughts in the comment section below.
One of my favorite interior design firms — Crosby Studios — has just launched a new home goods and accessories concept called Crosby Studios Home. The offerings are unmistakingly Harry Nuriev (the founder of Crosby Studios). It’s all about design, art, and fashion coming together. But what is also noteworthy is how the concept was launched using a virtual shoppable showroom. And the experience, which is pictured above, is shockingly good. You simply wander around this blue-floored apartment and click on whatever stuff you would like to add to your shopping cart. This isn’t the first virtual showroom experience, but as I was using it, I couldn’t help but think that we’ll be seeing a lot more of this in the future. This and things like shoppable augmented reality.
