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.
This is an interesting chart from Nathaniel Bullard over at Bloomberg Green. In 1985 (the start of this chart), coal-fired power was responsible for about 38% of global electricity generation. This particular stat hasn’t changed all that much since then — the current figure is around 36% — but renewables have gone from 0.8% to 13% of global electricity. That is something. Since 2010, renewables are adding about 0.8% market share each year, and presumably this rate will only increase going forward. (Here, renewable power is defined as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and small hydropower.)
Today was the SvNSpeaks event that I blogged about last week. As a reminder, the conversation was about how best to remove overly prescriptive and rigid development policies in order to better achieve our climate change goals. John Lorinc and I ended up agreeing on a lot of points, so maybe that suggests there’s a relatively clear path here. Now it’s just a matter of taking action.
The City of Toronto’s Official Plan directs growth to areas of the city that it refers to as Centres, Avenues, Employment Areas, and the Downtown. In other words, these are the areas where most new development is intended to take place. So if you own land in one of these areas, it is probably worth more than if it were outside of them, all other things being equal.
Avenues are what you might expect. They are major streets that run throughout the city (pink ones in the above map). But not all major streets are “Avenues.” There are lots of major streets that provide connectivity across the city but still feel like residential streets (tired ones I might add) and that have land use policies that only allow low-rise housing. I have always viewed this as a mismatch and I have long been critical of it on the blog.
But as part of the City’s Expanding Housing Options in Neighourhoods (EHON) initiative, this exact problem is being looked at. And I think it is one of the most important land use studies currently underway in the city. Because if we are truly serious about housing affordability and our low-carbon goals, we are going to need to blanket our city with a lot more transit-supportive density. And our major streets are great place to start.
I just hope that everyone involved will be as bold and visionary as possible. If you have any thoughts, please leave them in the comment selection below. And for the latest on this study, click here. It is an agenda item at next month’s Planning and Housing Committee meeting.
When I was in Phoenix this past spring I noticed a number of people carrying their big dogs around. At first I wasn’t sure what was going on. I thought maybe the dogs were injured and couldn’t walk. But then it dawned on me that maybe the ground was too hot for the dogs to walk on it. Phoenix is kind of hot sometimes and so this appears to be a thing.
In response to this kind of hot problem, the city has a pilot program underway where they’re testing out something that they are calling “cool pavement”, which is essentially a highly reflective coating that gets layered on top of your traditional asphalt streets. Here’s a video showing some of it getting applied:
The idea here is, of course, to lower the surface temperature during the day and also reduce the overall urban heat island. And after the first year of the pilot program, the results have been encouraging. Cool pavement had an average surface temperature that was 10.5 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit lower than traditional asphalt during the middle of the day.
But there have been some tradeoffs. Because of its higher reflectivity, mean radiant temperatures increased by about 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit during the day, which means that these streets feel warmer to humans when they’re around them. That’s obviously not ideal, but it could be a necessary trade-off to reduce surface temperatures across the city.
For more information on Phoenix’s cool pavement pilot program, click here.
If you’ve ever been to Paris, you’ve probably noticed the small pixelated art pieces that are scattered all around the city on buildings and various other hard surfaces.
Or maybe you haven’t seen or noticed them in Paris, but you’ve seen similarly pixelated mosaics in one of the other 79 cities around the world where they can be found.
Or maybe you have no idea what I’m talking about right now. Huh? Here’s an example from Bolivia (click here if you can’t see the embedded post below):
These pixelated urban art pieces are the work of French artist Invader. Modeled after 8-bit video games from the 1970s and 1980s, Invader has been installing these mosaics since 1998 as part of his broader “Space Invaders” project. The first one was installed in Paris.
No two pieces are alike and they’re all made out of ceramic tiles so that they last. Invader also meticulously researches and then records each install location. He is basically trying to take over the world with his “invasions”. As of today, there are 4056 invaders in 80 cities.
The goal of the project is to liberate art from what Invader calls “its usual alienators”, that being museums and other institutions. It is about bringing art out and into the public realm so that everyone can enjoy it. And this is precisely what makes his mosaics so wonderful — it is their playful integration into the urban landscape.
But these aren’t exactly sanctioned pieces of art. If he started out by asking, the answer probably would have been no.
Invader thinks of himself as a kind of hacker of public realms. He keeps his identity concealed. He installs these mosaics during the night (from what I have read). And sometimes he gets in a lot of trouble.
Sometimes they also get removed by the building owner, though at this point his mosaics are pretty well known, so I can’t imagine many owners not wanting to be “invaded.”
But let me ask all of you this: If you owned a building in a major city and woke up tomorrow morning to a Space Invader on the front of it, would you celebrate it, apathetically leave it, or would you remove it immediately?
I am a big fan of Victoria-based developer Aryze. And their Pearl Block project is a good example of why. Developed on an awkward triangular lot that had been sitting vacant for nearly 65 years and that presumably every other developer had been overlooking, the project brought six family-oriented townhouses to the Oaklands neighborhood of Victoria, BC.
Each of the towns has 3 bedrooms. Each has a living room facing the street (but with privacy from the neighbor). Each has a large rooftop deck (with 5 foot parapet walls so no kids fall over). And according to the developer, each sold for less than the average price of a single-family home in the Oaklands area. Not surprisingly, the project also won all sorts of awards.
It is a great example of the kind of beautiful and mid-market missing middle housing that so many of us are always talking about. Why build 1 home when you can build 6? Why build 6 homes when you can build 18? Still, there remains far too many obstacles in the way of any sort of housing that doesn’t conform to the status-quo:
After 7 trips to Council, 3 year rezoning, 14 months for building permits, a trip to the Supreme Court, and 18 months for construction…Rhodo is almost done!!
It shouldn’t be this difficult. And it shouldn’t take this long. Actually, let me rephrase this. It can’t be this difficult and it can’t this long; that is, if we’re expecting to actually come close to meeting the demand for new housing. There is no great mystery as to why the missing middle is, you know, missing. We made it that way.
Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but I continue to feel like there is a groundswell of interest in trying to improve housing supply and overall affordability. The YIMBY movement continues to gain steam. Here are are few excerpts from a recent M. Nolan Gray article where he calls for an end to zoning as we know it today:
In nearly every major U.S. city, apartments are banned in at least 70 percent of residential areas. San Jose prohibits apartments in 94 percent of its residential areas. The most a developer can build in these zones is a detached single-family home.
The results speak for themselves. Houston builds housing at 14 times the rate of peers like San Jose. And it isn’t just sprawl: In 2019, Houston built roughly the same number of apartments as Los Angeles, despite being half its size. Since reforms to minimum-lot-size rules were put in place in 1998, more than 25,000 townhouses have been built, overwhelmingly in existing urban areas.
To be clear, Houston has made its share of planning mistakes. But, free of zoning, the city can constantly remake itself. That Houston is now one of the most affordable and diverse cities in the country is no accident.
The relationship between housing affordability and constraints on development is a well-documented one. If you want more affordable housing, you generally want fewer, rather than more, constraints on delivering new housing.
But as I was reading through the article, I couldn’t help but think more specifically about the relationship between sprawl and affordability. Because it is also true that, for a variety of reasons, the former has tended to help the latter (or at least coincide with it), which is why Gray felt it was important to say “and it isn’t just sprawl” when talking about Houston.
Part of this relationship has to do with the fact that expansionist development tends to be of the low-rise stick-built varietal, which is a relatively cost effective way to build. Whereas the higher density infill stuff tends to be built using more expensive materials like reinforced concrete. But of course there are many other factors at play, including lower land costs.
So I think one really interesting question is this one here: To what extent could we break this relationship between sprawl and affordability with what Gray is advocating for? In other words, how cheap could we make new infill housing in our older cities if we were to greatly loosen zoning controls or possibly even remove them all together?
I don’t know the exact answer, but I know that directionally it would be better.
I was just asked to participate in a roundtable brainstorming session about how to improve Toronto's parks and public spaces. What needs to be said, friends?
And it got me thinking about how much I love Lisbon:
Lisbon’s cafe kiosks are so wonderful. They anchor public life, place-make, and help to brand the city. If I were running for mayor of Toronto (which I’m not), I’d propose the following 👇 #TOpolipic.twitter.com/0d3hKaRub6
But the important story here is that these tweets made it abundantly clear to me that (1) people from all over want far more from their parks and public spaces and that (2) Lisbon’s kiosks are a truly beloved urban feature.
I’m putting this all out there because I received a ton of inbounds following these tweets, and I would love to find a way to execute on the kiosk idea that I outlined in the above twitter thread. So if you’d like to help, please continue to get in touch.
This event poster has reminded me that, every now and then, I probably need to pull out a cooler headshot. In any event, next week I’m going to be a guest on SvNSpeaks, along with John Lorinc, talking about the obstacles that overly prescriptive and rigid development policies are creating for our climate goals. This is obviously a really important topic. Because if we were singularly focused on reducing carbon emissions, we wouldn’t be building the way we are building today.
For more information and to register for the virtual event, click here.
I hate driving. So I’m looking forward to the day when autonomous vehicles will be able to take me where I need to go, such as out for a late-night poutine.
But as we all know, autonomy has proven to be a trickier problem to solve than most people initially anticipated. Though I do believe that we’re getting there, especially for certain use cases.
The WSJ recently published an interesting article talking about why autonomy is likely to reach the trucking industry well before it reaches general consumers. And that feels right to me:
Here’s the promise of robot trucks: While full self-driving in all conditions is still a pipe dream, engineers seem to be close to achieving it in limited circumstances, such as on highways on clear days. And highway driving, in good weather, happens to be exactly the context in which long-haul trucks operate for a substantial portion of the time.
The article also gets into some of the economic benefits of figuring this all out:
Adding even $20,000 of hardware, in the form of additional sensors and powerful computers, to a long-haul truck is quickly offset by the elimination of labor costs, which typically represent 15% to 20% of the cost of operating a truck. Another big economic impact is that by law a human driving a truck must stop and rest. That means every truck, which can cost between $100,000 and $200,000, is only being used about 30% to 40% of the time. Just running them 24 hours, stopping only for fuel and maintenance, increases their utilization by a factor of two or more.
