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.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has just published this report on shared micro mobility in the US from 2010 to 2021. And it’s a good look at how this space has evolved over the years. According to the report, the first modern North American bike share system was installed in Montréal in 2009 and the first in the US was in 2010. Though a quick Google search has Washington DC claiming this title in 2008.
Whatever the case may be, bike share ridership started somewhere around 321k per year in the US and trip volume is now close to 50 million per year. Electric scooters also joined the mix in 2018, and 2019 was a banner year for this mode of transportation. The report suggests this was due to cheap VC money subsidizing these rides. Electric scooters have seen their average trip cost 2x between 2018 ($3.50) and 2021 ($7), despite the average trip distance remaining more or less flat (1.3 to 1.2 miles).
Naturally, the pandemic was bad for shared mobility. But it is interesting to see how much this space has rebounded and how resilient it seems to be. Prior to the pandemic, bike share usage had clear morning and evening peaks, coinciding with people commuting to work. Since then, we have seen a shift to both a wider range of trips (i.e. to do things like get groceries) and more trips throughout the day.
To download a full copy of the report, click here.
Dan Frommer has just just released his latest Consumer Trends report (2023). If you’d like to download a free copy, you can do that over here. It is amazing to see how big of a deal Tik Tok has become. In Q3 2022, the average Android user spent 98 minutes per day in the app. That is a lot, and it’s roughly 2x what Facebook and Instagram each saw (though if you combine these two apps, I guess they’re pretty similar). Either way, this is where people’s attention is now being spent. For those of us in real estate, the report also has some interesting slides on grocery stores. The key message here is that physical stores remain hugely important.
The year-over-year change in online grocery spending is now flat to a little negative:
No matter which generation you ask, more people prefer shopping for groceries in-store, versus online:
And even when people do shop for groceries “online”, they still tend to pick them up from their local store or have that local store deliver it to them (so the store matters):
Our team is looking to partner with local Hamilton, Ontario-based artists and creatives as part of a new project that we’re working on for next year. So this post is intended to be a call to artists. If you’re based in Hamilton and doing great work, we would love to hear from you. Please drop me an email (brandon@slateam.com).
In my mind, art and culture is a fundamental ingredient in Hamilton’s ongoing renaissance. Each and every time I’m in the city, I feel like I meet someone who is an artist. And there are so many great examples that we can point to.
Take Scott Martin (aka Burnt Toast). Scott is a Hamilton-based illustrator and co-creator of the fantastically popular Doodles NFT collection. I don’t have one in my wallet, but I can tell you that I want one. The current starting price for a Doodle is nearly US$9k. But as an alternative, you could also just go to downtown Hamilton and look at one of Scott’s public murals.
Go Hamilton. Please show us what else you are creating.
The Fédération des Professionnels de la Micromobilité (FPMM) — yes, this exists — estimates that there are about 2.5 million regular scooter users in France.
In 2021, about 900,000 units were sold in the country, which represents a 42% increase compared to 2020.
Sales directly to users is outstripping the revenue from self-service operators such as Lime, Bird, Dott, and Voi. Current annual estimates are in the range of €310 million and €40 million, respectively.
About 50% of scooter sales are happening at grocery stores, compared to 30% at other retailers, and 20% online. (This is kind of interesting. I wonder if people are impulse buying while shopping for food.)
I am a big fan of electric scooters. And all of this suggests to me that scooter adoption is likely to continue, that we are going to need to start thinking more about how best to incorporate them into our cities, and that eventually Toronto will have to stop being so conservative.
The EU has set an interconnection target of at least 15% by 2030 to encourage EU countries to interconnect their installed electricity production capacity. This means that each country should have in place electricity cables that allow at least 15% of the electricity produced on its territory to be transported across its borders to neighbouring countries.
The main reasons to do this is that it is good for renewables and it is good for overall resilience. The UK, for example, has one of the largest offshore wind markets in the world. But if it’s having a bad wind year, interconnections allow it to import the electricity it may need — perhaps from Norway, which is Europe’s biggest producer of hydropower.
Here is what that looked like in 2021 (via the FT):
Of course, this works really well when there’s enough electricity to go around and everyone is cooperating. The question this winter is whether that changes at all.
I’m not sure how much you can actually glean from this Australian Bureau of Statistics data (taken from this recent New Geography article):
The data was collected on August 20, 2021 and, at that time, there were still a number of pandemic lockdowns in place. But consider the fact that during the last census (2016), Sydney’s “work @ home” share was only 4.9% and that its transit share was 26.2%.
Where Sydney is sitting today is obviously somewhere between where it was in 2016 and where it was in 2021. Who knows where exactly things stabilize — that is largely unknowable — but at least I got to use “Sydneysider” in a blog post title.
In the wake of Bill 23, there has been a lot of discussion and concern around development charges and parkland dedication revenues. At a high level, the concern is that the proposed changes will reduce the amount of money that cities are able to collect from developers, and that this will exacerbate any existing funding shortfalls and possibly force municipalities to do things like raise property taxes. In the case of Toronto, the estimated figure is about $230 million of lost revenue per year.
For all intents and purposes, this is objectively true. Bill 23 includes changes that will reduce the amount of revenue that cities are able to collect when new stuff is being built. Here is one such example:
New sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 provide, respectively, for exemptions from development charges for the creation of affordable residential units and attainable residential units, for non-profit housing developments and for inclusionary zoning residential units.
This makes for great headline fodder: “Bill 23 is bad, it is going to reduce city revenues by $X million, your property taxes may need to go up, so you should be deeply upset about this.” Hmm. We should talk about this. I’m not going to suggest that Bill 23 is entirely perfect. But I do think it is important to consider two important facts when it comes to things like development charges.
Firstly, the above exemption (to use just one example) is specifically related to affordable and attainable housing. It is not a reduction in DCs for the sake of reducing DCs. It is an attempt to recognize that we need more affordable/attainable housing and so maybe we should do things that make it easier and less costly to build it. And this brings me back to a point that I frequently make on this blog, which is that we can talk all we want about the need for more affordable housing, but at the end of the day it comes back to this: Who is going to pay for it? There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The common rebuttal to exemptions like this is that developers will always profit maximize and price their housing at the most the market will bear. In other words, there is no evidence that developers will pass on any cost savings to the end consumer. But this is not entirely true. For developers, pricing a project is typically a cost-plus exercise: how much is this going to cost to build and what do I need in revenue in order to hit my required returns?
When costs go down, it reduces what you need to make a project feasible. This in turn reduces developer risk, because there is always a very real question of absorption. The more you push pricing, the more you slow market absorption. So you might actually be better off selling for less, more quickly. An example of this line of thinking is when condominium developers choose to sell 100% of their inventory upfront as opposed to holding some back with the expectation that prices will increase in the future. Doing this means that you value certainty over profit maximization.
Development charges are fees collected from developers at the time a building permit to help pay for the cost of infrastructure required to provide municipal services to new development, such as roads, transit, water and sewer infrastructure, community centres and fire and police facilities.
Put differently, development charges are based on the idea that growth should pay for growth. When you build something new you create additional servicing demands, and so developers should pay for whatever incremental needs their projects are creating. This is, of course, fair. However, it is not the intent that growth pays for existing services. i.e. Ones that would be required regardless of whether there was the presence of development.
So in theory, if new development were to shut off entirely and if development charge revenue were to go to $0, there shouldn’t be any issues funding the existing services. And in theory, nobody should be complaining about this lost revenue, because there is actually no need for this additional revenue. There is no growth to fund and all existing services are being adequately funded by the residents who are already there and using them.
Of course, not all city services are self sustaining. Public transit, for instance, typically requires subsidies. Ridership fares aren’t enough to pay for operations, and this shortfall got understandably a lot worse during the pandemic. But is this a growth-related problem or is it an existing-resident problem? I mean, technically the problem is notenough riders. So isn’t that kind of the opposite of growth related? More people would be a benefit right now.
In any event, the point I am raising today is that there is a right way and a wrong way to complain about lost development charge revenue. The wrong way is thinking, “ah, this lost revenue is going to impact my quality of life and the existing city services that I enjoy. I may have to pay higher property taxes.” The relevant points for this particular discussion should not be that there’s an operating budget shortfall or that existing taxpayers maybe can’t afford to pay.
The more valid way to complain would be to say, “hey, these reduced development charges are going to make it difficult to fund the growth-related upgrades needed to support new and more housing in my community. And we need more housing!” Because if the concern is not actually this second one, then the headlines are a great big red herring. We have a larger financial problem on our hands that we are not speaking about.
Japan has a building typology known as machiya. They are found throughout Japan, but my understanding is that they are most closely associated with downtown Kyoto. The typical machiya consists of a long wooden home with a narrow street frontage, and at least one interior courtyard garden.
But perhaps the most interesting aspect of these townhouses is that, for the centuries that they have existed, they have always been mixed-used. The front of the building traditionally served as a kind of “shop space”, and the private residential spaces were tucked behind it (though this line between public and private was fairly fluid).
And so for hundreds of years, the humble machiya became a flexible building typology that allowed shops, restaurants, and various other small businesses to flourish. This has changed over the years. People went off to work in offices and Western ideals around housing started to infiltrate Japan, among other reasons. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t important lessons to be learned from Kyoto’s machiya.
But take a walk, cycle, or drive across one of our non-Avenue-designated arterial roads (which I did yesterday), and it’s hard not to imagine something much better. My mind immediately goes to an improved streetscape with (1) less on-street parking, (2) a lot more homes (as-of-right), and (3) flexible ground floor permissions that allow for crazy things like a “shop space”.
And then, what kind of city might we have if we had fewer barriers in the way of infill housing and if we allowed for low-cost spaces that could flex up and down based on the needs of small entrepreneurs? I’m pretty sure it would be a better one. And of course, it’s been done before.
Sometimes I stop and think to myself, “my god, I’ve been writing my daily blog for over 9 years. That’s a huge commitment. Should I stop? Is it really worth it?”
But of course I do think it is worth it, mostly because I enjoy writing, I enjoy thinking about things, and I enjoy connecting with people through this blog. I don’t want to stop. It’s perhaps also important for me to keep in mind that 9 years maybe isn’t all that long.
I read this FT article today about investor Howard Marks. Marks is co-founder of Oaktree Capital Management, a person with billions of dollars, and the author of a popular investing memo (200,000+ subscribers) that I generally never miss. And after reading about his backstory, I now feel very much like a blogging baby:
He began writing the memos in 1990, initially sending them by post to Oaktree’s 50 or so clients. For the first 10 years, “I never had one response,” he says. And then, on January 2 2000, Marks distributed a memo called “bubble.com”, in which he made the “overwhelming” case for “an overheated, speculative market in technology, internet and telecommunications stocks”, similar to past manias such as the 18th-century South Sea Bubble. The memo “had two virtues”, says Marks. “It was right and it was right quickly.” The technology-heavy Nasdaq index slumped four-fifths from peak to trough between March 2000 and October 2002. “After 10 years, I became an overnight success.”
I have no particular end goal in mind for this blog. I have no need to become an overnight success. My plan is to just continue writing as an adjunct to all of the other things I do. However, I am attracted to the value of discipline, compounding consistency, and long-term thinking.
It’s not easy doing something for a decade and having nobody respond. At least with this blog, I get the occasional heckler telling me that I’m a greedy developer out to destroy our cities.
P.S.: If you’re into longish memos about investing, I would encourage you to check out Marks’ latest memo about what really matters. In it, he talks about why short-term events — such as, interest rates might do this — are by far the least important thing to focus on.
Increasing supply is frequently proposed as a solution to rising housing costs. However, there is little evidence on how new market-rate construction—which is typically expensive—affects the market for lower quality housing in the short run. I begin by using address history data to identify 52,000 residents of new multifamily buildings in large cities, their previous address, the current residents of those addresses, and so on. This sequence quickly adds lower-income neighborhoods, suggesting that strong migratory connections link the low-income market to new construction. Next, I combine the address histories with a simulation model to estimate that building 100 new market-rate units leads 45-70 and 17-39 people to move out of below-median and bottom-quintile income tracts, respectively, with almost all of the effect occurring within five years. This suggests that new construction reduces demand and loosens the housing market in low and middle-income areas, even in the short run.
This paper is not suggesting that everything will be fine so long as you build lots of new and expensive market-rate housing. But it is suggesting that a “filtering” of housing downward does oftentimes take place.
