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 2021

  • US expects to deliver more than 330,000 new rental units this year

    Here’s some recent data from RENTCafe looking at the supply of new multifamily rental apartments in the US. About 334,000 rental units are expected to be completed and occupied this year, which is a decline from the 2018 peak of 357,000 units, though still a relatively high number. This year is expected to be the fifth consecutive year where supply is greater than 330,000 units. Below you can also see how this breaks down across the largest MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas).

    For this study, RENTCafe looked at new apartment construction data for buildings with 50 or more units (so no smaller infill projects). It covers 109 US metro areas. To determine whether a building is likely to be completed in 2021, they looked at confirmed certificate of occupancies and also used some sort of fancy algorithm to predict the likelihood that an under construction project will get one before the year is out.

    For more on their study, click here.

  • Is better design the solution to NIMBYism?

    Alexis Self has an opinion piece in today’s Monocle Minute (email newsletter) that deals with development in London and NIMBYism. Here’s an excerpt:

    Affluent, socially liberal city dwellers can be the most extreme Nimbys. But perhaps their ire wouldn’t be so fierce if what was being built weren’t so aesthetically offensive. In the postwar era, London’s councils teemed with ambitious urban planners. The result: design classics such as Trellick Tower in Kensal Green, the Barbican Estate and Camden’s Alexandra Road Estate. While it’s true that these were labelled ugly at the time, they were undeniably the work of Europe’s best architects. Few, if any, of the city’s 21st-century edifices will enjoy a similar reappraisal.

    Alexis raises two interesting points: 1) Could better architecture and design actually help to quash NIMBY sentiment and 2) are we really not designing and building like we used to?

    I’ll start with number two.

    I am not that familiar with the “design classics” that Alexis mentions above, but it just so happens then when I was watching Never Too Small over the weekend I came across this studio apartment in the Barbican Estate.

    Designed by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in the 1960s, the Barbican is a residential complex with somewhere around 2,000 apartments. It’s considered a prominent example of British brutalist architecture and so most of it is listed.

    While certainly noteworthy, it strikes me that it is likely one of those pieces of architecture that designers and architects love (I like it), but that the general public dislikes. In fact, architect Witold Rybczynski once argued that, “if people don’t hate it, it can’t be Brutalist.”

    Brutalism is having a bit of a renaissance. Kind of. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near universal appreciation. So I wonder if the general public really views these “design classics” as being some sort of golden era of British architecture and development.

    I also think, and I have argued this before on the blog, that buildings sometimes take time to settle in. From Montreal to Stockholm, our perceptions have been shown to change. The things we disliked before suddenly become desirable.

    Which means it can be hard to tell if we objectively dislike something (we’re not building like we used to) or if it’s simply not old enough for us to starting appreciating it. Beauty also happens to be a kind of subjective thing when it comes to buildings. Turns out we’re better at assessing whether people are good looking.

    This is probably a good time to come back to point number one: Could better architecture help quash NIMBYism?

    Not quite. I would argue that it certainly helps but it won’t completely quash it. I believe wholeheartedly in the power of great design. I want everything to be beautiful and considered. But the cynical developer in me knows that it will sadly only go so far.

    Béton brut (raw concrete) isn’t for everyone, I guess.

  • 8 years of writing every day

    This weekend was the 8 year anniversary of writing this daily blog. It’s hard to imagine that it has been this long. Perhaps because COVID has accelerated the last little while and made it difficult to remember what day or year it is sometimes.

    I am often asked what the end game is for this blog. What am I hoping to get out of it? The truth is there is no real end game. I like reading and writing. I like being constantly curious about the world. I like discipline. I like meeting and connecting with new people. And I like having my own little place on the internet, however small it may be.

    I get dozens of emails each week from people and companies wanting to pay for sponsored posts on this blog. I’m not sure how legitimate these inbounds are, but I ignore all of them. That’s not what this blog is for or about.

    In the early days of writing this blog it was called Architect This City and the focus was a bit narrower: real estate, design, planning and all things cities. That is still more or less the case, but I do often stray from these topics. Sometimes into personal topics. Sometimes into my photography. And more recently into the world of crypto and blockchains. This is one of the reasons why I decided to move to just blogging under my own name. There’s more flexibility.

    Sidebar: I recently bought my first NFT — a CryptoBabyPunk. I’m not at all suggesting that you should do the same. It could be worthless in the future. But I continue to be fascinated by what’s happening in this space and I’ve committed myself to experimenting and learning a lot more.

    Writing something each day is extremely difficult. Some days it only takes 15-20 minutes. And other days, when I’m not in the mood or I’m exhausted from doing too many other things, it can take over an hour. It’s a big time commitment and on more than one occasion I’ve questioned whether my time was better spent elsewhere. But then I think about all of the benefits that I derive from this daily practice.

    They say that the definition of a habit is that you don’t feel normal until you’ve done it. And this blog has certainly become a habit of mine. It forces me to wake up every morning and consider at least one interesting thing that may be happening in our cities and our world. I don’t intend to stop anytime soon. So thank you all for reading over the years.

  • Never too small — beautifully designed small spaces

    This is my new favorite YouTube channel. I discovered it last night and it’s called “Never Too Small.” The focus is on beautifully designed small spaces. And all of the videos are meticulously crafted — they have a calming feel to them.

    The first video that I watched was the one above (click here if you can’t see the embed) about Desmond Wong’s 31st floor apartment in Hong Kong. At 52 square meters, it’s actually one of the larger spaces on the channel. But it is perhaps important to keep in mind that this was a 2-bedroom flat before Desmond renovated it.

    Floor plans are an interesting thing (and something I enjoy working through for work) because there are lots of nuances to consider, some of which are entirely local. For example, in this flat you’ll see that the kitchen is off in its own little room and furnished with a window.

    That is common in many of the HK apartments that I have seen, but it is not how we would typically lay things out in a new build of this scale here in Toronto. The kitchen would likely be a galley kitchen adjacent to the living/dining room to create more of an open concept plan.

    I’m looking forward to watching their other episodes. For more about NTS, you can also check out their website. They recently published a book which, from what I can tell, looks equally beautiful.

  • Legendary literary hangouts in New York City

    The New York Times’ recent celebration of the city’s “legendary literary hangouts” is an important reminder of one of the great features of city life. Cities have a way of mixing different people together and inspiring the creation of great things. And sometimes that happens rather informally. (That’s one of the reasons why there’s tremendous value in the nighttime economy.) Tina Jordan writes: “You might think of them as solitary creatures, furiously scribbling or typing alone, but as long as there have been writers in New York City, they have socialized together in an assortment of bars, restaurants, apartments and clubs.”

    For the full thing, click here.

  • Our Plan Toronto

    The City of Toronto is currently reviewing its Official Plan, which is a city planning document that acts as a kind of master guide for land user matters. It is a pretty important document in that it dictates, among other things, what kind of development should go where. One way that it is often explained is that our OP is the “vision”, whereas our zoning by-laws are the “precision.”

    This update will be completed by next summer. Why? Because the Province of Ontario said so. (That’s how things work around here. I think cities should have more power.)

    Toronto is expected to grow by more than 700,000 people and add some 450,000 jobs by 2051. Where these people and jobs will be accommodated is a big part of the exercise here.

    As part of this review, the City of Toronto published this Story Map. It is pretty neat. It looks at how the city has grown over the years (the above image is Toronto’s 1943 Master Plan). It explains a little bit about how planning works. And it has a bunch of stats on how people live and work in the city. I just used it to confirm my hunch that there are exactly zero single-family homes in my neighborhood.

    Looking at the above map from 1943, it is, of course, interesting to see how much the city has grown. But it also interesting to note that many of the neighborhoods that now form part of the city were just “New Residential Areas with Prospective Populations.” They were colors and numbers on a map in areas that had yet to be built out by developers.

    When I see this, I can’t help but wonder what the narrative was like at the time with respect to these new developments. Were people upset? Were people happy? Did people even notice what was happening on the edges of their city? Because sprawl, and that’s what this was, is quite different from intensification.

    Our focus today is on the latter. It is about building up as opposed to out. There’s no more room for yellow shaded areas with numbers. This means that we will end up using our land and other resources more efficiently, but it also presents a whole host of issues. Change is hard. Intensification is hard. Part of the job of this document is to navigate some of these challenges.

    If you’d like to get engaged with the city’s Official Plan review, head over here.

  • Paul Smith on being “childlike”

    British designer Paul Smith was recently interviewed by Monocle on Design about his recent collaboration with BMW and Mini. If you like Mini cars, you’ll probably like the episode. But he also raises two interesting points about his business and about how he approaches design.

    The first is that his business is a balancing act. In the front, he wants it to be pioneering, flashy, and self-indulgent. But in the back, he keeps the lights on by selling lots of navy blue suits and polo shirts. Both are important, because if you stop pioneering then you stop being relevant.

    The second point he makes is about how he approaches design. Paul Smith’s London studio is famously cluttered. He likes to collect a lot of stuff. Some might call it hoarding. But for him, the space helps him think laterally and also remain “childlike.” (Where we work apparently matters.)

    Children, as we know, are honest, curious, and free in a way that adults aren’t. They don’t have the same reference points and that can be very empowering. Forget the way that things are currently done and challenge yourself: “What if?” I like that a lot.

    To listen to the Monocle on Design episode, click here.

    Photo by Boris YUE on Unsplash

  • From mail-order catalogues and e-commerce to brick-and-mortar retailing

    It was recently announced that Amazon plans to start opening large brick-and-mortar retail stores that are akin to department stores. They won’t be quite as big. Supposedly they will be around 30,000 square feet. But this is still a meaningful commitment to physical retailing. The first stores of this type are expected to be in California and Ohio.

    On the one hand, this move probably appears counterintuitive. I mean, Amazon is a machine built around e-commerce (though it does already have other physical stores). But on the other hand, you could argue that they are simply following a retailing playbook that was developed over a century ago by companies like Montgomery Ward and Sears.

    Both of these companies disrupted traditional retailing in the late 19th century through mail-order catalogues. Why pay for physical space when you can just mail people catalogues? (Your margin is my opportunity, right?)

    But as we know, eventually these mail-order catalogue businesses turned into brick-and-mortar stores, and they then thrived this way for many years. If you consider e-commerce to just be the 21st century equivalent of the mail-order catalogue, then perhaps this next move by Amazon was always destined to happen.

  • Should Market Street be pedestrianized?

    Next to the St. Lawrence Market (here in Toronto) is an appropriately named street called Market Street. It is a lovely street — perhaps one of the nicest in the city. It’s old and historic and it was completely redone several years ago (evidence here) with nice unit pavers, bollards, a curbless design, and seasonal restaurant patios.

    In the winter months, the restaurant patios are packed up and additional parking is added to that side of the street. It was designed to be adaptable and in my experience it seems to be working quite well.

    Right now the local Business Improvement Area is running a pilot project to see what this street might be like if it were to be pedestrianized. It was closed to vehicles this past weekend and the same will happen this upcoming weekend. Here’s a photo of what that looked like on Saturday:

    It’s not perfect. A number of people commented on Twitter that the seating needs some shade. But hey, it’s a pilot project. It is about giving people a taste of what the future could be.

    I am a fan of pedestrianized streets in the right locations and when executed well. And I think this stretch of Market Street is a perfect candidate. It’s already pedestrian-only to the north of Front Street and it has the right kind of “edges” to ensure that it can be properly animated.

    If you feel the same way, I would encourage you to fill out this short survey that the St. Lawrence BIA has put out. I would also be curious to hear your thoughts on pedestrianized streets in general. Leave a comment below.

  • What intersection in Toronto would you say is the epicenter of the nighttime economy?

    When I was a lot younger and growing up in Toronto, the place to go out at night was in the Entertainment District, centered around Richmond St West and Adelaide St West. This is where all of the bars and clubs were. Thinking back, the concentration of nighttime activities in this area was pretty incredible.

    Those of you who are familiar with Toronto will know that this area isn’t the same nighttime epicenter that it once was and that it’s been this way for many years. The scene shifted westward and down to King St. It also went from larger clubs and venues to smaller bars, restaurants, and lounges. Tastes change, I guess.

    So if you had to choose one intersection to be the epicenter of nightlife in Toronto right now, I think you could easily argue that it’s King St West and Portland St. (Disagree with this take? Leave a comment below.)

    But why this intersection? Why did the nighttime economy land right here?

    Part of it was surely development pressures in the Entertainment District, which forced a broader move. I also think that these areas tend to become victims of their own success. Clubs and bars generate a lot of noise and that makes some people grouchy.

    But I think you could also argue that the intersection of King and Portland has some very specific urban qualities that lend itself to becoming a kind of heart for nightlife.

    It helps that it is the only north-south street that intersects King between Bathurst and Spadina. However, I think the more important point is that both Bathurst and Spadina are fairly broad arterial avenues (certainly that is the case for Spadina). These intersections aren’t as hospitable to pedestrians and so they create a natural break in “the strip.”

    The result is that Portland, which is a much smaller street, became the heart. The intersection feels much more like an urban room. Leave one bar and another one is right in front of you. That’s one of the things about cities. Intimate spaces, rather than big ones, are often what attract people.