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.
Never Too Small remains one of my favorite YouTube channels. And I have written about their videos before on the blog. The homes that they feature on their channel are generally below 600 square feet or so, and most of them are well below this mark. Some have even been designed for young families.
One of the common strategies that you’ll see with small floor plans is that the bedroom is often reduced to only what is necessary for sleeping and it is often inset within the home, away from any exterior glass. As an example, here are before and after screenshots from a 318 sf apartment in London (link to video).
Before:
After:
In this case, the bedroom was pulled away from the apartment’s bay window and a small mezzanine level was created. This makes a lot of sense since the bay window is kind of a main feature — one that, I think, is better reserved for a primary living space. They also flipped the kitchen up against the other window, rescuing it from the bowels of the apartment.
If I had been the one tasked with redesigning this apartment, this is a floor plan that I could see myself landing on. But here’s the thing. All things being equal, I think most people would prefer a bedroom with a window. And even when all things aren’t equal, a lot of people seem willing to compromise on their main living space so that they still get one (see before plan).
So before you go ahead and watch the NTS video, I’m curious: Which do you prefer? Would pick the before plan or the after plan given these two options?
Times Square in New York has, as we all know, a checkered past. For much of its history, it has served as an important civic gathering space for New Yorkers. But it has also alternated between being a place for New Year’s Eve countdowns and being a place for salacious entertainment. This was the case as far as back as the late 19th century when prostitution from New York’s entertainment and red light district (then known as the Tenderloin) started moving northward.
But it was also the case during the economic fallout of the Great Depression and again the case from the 1960s to 1990s when the area become a symbol for a more broadly decaying New York City. The area was seedy, dangerous, and according to tax records, fairly vacant, notwithstanding all the sex shops. Most would probably agree that this was not a high point for the area. As a rule, cities are generally better off when their buildings aren’t vacant and decaying.
But are all red light districts bad and undesirable?
Last year, Amsterdam voted in favor of closing down its famed city center red light district and moving it to some kind of new “erotic center” on the outskirts of the city, in a location that is yet to be determined. Not surprisingly, this decision hasn’t been without some controversy. Local sex workers seem to be generally against the idea and petitions are now circulating, such as this one here from Failed Architecture, asking the building industry not to participate in the build out of this new center.
In some ways Amsterdam has the opposite problem compared to what Times Square experienced between the 1960s and the early 1990s. Amsterdam is too popular. Back in 2019, prior to COVID, the city saw some 22 million unique annual visitors. And I am guessing that more than a few of these visitors probably got drunk, wandered through the narrow streets of De Wallen, and peed on the side of a few buildings. Is it unsafe? I don’t know. I’ve never been. Is it immoral? Depends on who you ask. Is it annoying for locals? Probably.
The city has been clear in that it views this as over-tourism, and also the wrong kind of tourism. Rather than rely on sleaze, Amsterdam wants to “reset” its tourism approach and focus more on highbrow things like art and culture. This is an understandable objective. Because presumably the tourists who actively seek out art and culture attractions are, you know, a bit less reckless and a bit less likely to pee on the side of buildings. Of course, you never know.
But is this really the right city planning approach? Is there any cultural value to these historic uses? And what does this say about the city’s famously liberal attitudes? More specifically, does wanting to move your red light district from the middle of the city to some less conspicuous location — in an effort to dissociate your city brand — a reflection that you’re becoming maybe a little less tolerant towards the activities that take place in said district? It certainly seems like it.
But I don’t know, maybe that isn’t entirely the case. Maybe there’s a tenuous argument that the city is just as liberal and permissive. After all, the city is still generally okay with this kind of debauchery. It just wants this debauchery to take place in a different area outside of the overcrowded city center. In other words, the activities themselves aren’t the problem. It is arguably the negative externalities that come along with them that need to be managed. And a suburban “erotic center” is simply better for that.
What are your thoughts? And what would you do if you were the mayor of Amsterdam?
Should Amsterdam close down its red light district and create a new "erotic centre" on the outskirts of the city?
The presidential election that is underway right now in France is playing out exactly as one might imagine. The first round of votes took place on April 10, and the second and final round — which is now between Macron and Le Pen — will take place on April 24.
How people voted in the first round can be mostly explained by geography. If you live in an urban center, an attractive tourist center, or have reasonably good rail connectivity to either of these two kinds of places, you likely voted for Macron.
On the other hand, if you live in a poorer rural area, you were more likely to vote for Le Pen. Our spiky unequal world remains, even in France, where more wealth tends to be redistributed compared to places like the UK and the US.
But there’s another potentially correlative factor that should interest readers of this blog (even if it is somewhat obvious). If you voted for Macron in the first round, you were also less likely to rely on a car to get to work. Here are two charts from the Financial Times:
This point is perhaps obvious because geography and built form largely determine whether or not you want/need to drive. And the way to not drive is to live in a dense city. But I think it’s also a useful reminder that owning a car does not necessarily need to correlate with high economic status.
In fact, when I look at these charts, not having to drive to work feels like a good thing.
Living in a low-density place with lots of greenery and open space can feel like a pretty “green” way to live. Maybe you’ve even got a little garden where you grow delicious tomatoes. And indeed, a lot of people seem to think this is the case. According to this recent YouGov poll (which surveyed 1,000 Americans), 75% of US adult citizens believe that “it’s better for the environment if houses are built farther apart.” The number drops slightly to 68% for Democrats, but we’re still talking about a clear majority.
Most experts will tell you that the opposite is, in fact, true. One of the best ways to be green is to live in a high-density urban setting and get as far away as you can from the natural environment so that you don’t screw it up. There are multiple reasons for this, but it generally comes down to the fact that cities use land and other resources far more efficiently on a per capita basis. Smaller living spaces, fewer cars, more things that are shared, and so on.
The reason why this isn’t so obvious is that per capita thinking is perhaps harder to grasp. Living in the countryside certainly feels more green than living in the middle of New York City. But what if the 8.5 million or so people in New York City suddenly decided to sprawl outward into the countryside to consume more housing (that would then need to be heated and cooled), and then started driving everywhere (in lieu of taking transit, cycling, and walking)?
This would be a less green outcome. It’s about the collective here, not what feels nice and green for any one individual.
The big news this week for Toronto city builders is that the city has put forward a proposal to substantially increase development charges. Here’s a tweet storm that I published earlier today on the topic, and here’s a summary of what the new fees might look like:
To translate this into a specific example, let’s assume that you’re building a 300 unit apartment building with 180 one bedroom suites and 120 two bedroom suites.
Under these proposed DC rates, this would translate into charges of about $9.6mm for the one bedroom suites and $9.8mm for the two bedroom suites, totaling over $19.4mm in DCs alone. But keep in mind that there would be other charges on top of this for parkland dedication, community benefits, and a bunch of other things.
When our cost consultant ran the numbers back in 2019, the estimate was that about a quarter of the price of a new condominium in Toronto was going to government fees and taxes. But with the above increase and with the introduction of policies like inclusionary zoning, I am sure that the number is higher today.
These are easy fees to hide. Most people don’t know they exist. And a lot of people don’t seem to like new development and new housing. Property taxes on the other hand are highly visible and highly sensitive. So that tax tends to be left alone, especially by comparison.
But these increases are hugely impactful. It means that developers across the city will now need to start looking at increasing rents and prices in order to try and offset it. If they can’t, they won’t build. And if they can, it will mean that the housing that does ultimately get built will be that much more expensive.
The common criticism with NFT art is that it’s just a JPEG image. So why bother “owning” it when you can just right-click, save as? Who in their right mind would spend thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands on such a thing?
But as I’ve argued before, this is missing the bigger picture and missing what this new technology has the potential to empower. Take for example, the new Bored & Hungry restaurant that opened up in Long Beach, California this past weekend (with lines down the block).
It is being dubbed the world’s first Bored Ape Yacht Club restaurant, and here’s the backstory. Andy Nguyen is a successful food entrepreneur in southern California. And last month he spent US$267,000 on Bored Ape #6184 (yes, a JPEG).
After doing this, he took to Twitter and asked: “Worst decision I’ve ever made or best idea of all time?” Of course, he clearly had a new business idea in mind.
Fast forward to today and he now has a pop-up restaurant concept that is branded with his Bored Ape. And because the Bored Ape IP is very permissive, he is perfectly within his rights to do this. He can create whatever business he wants on the shoulders of his NFT, as can others with theirs.
His restaurant is also accepting the new ApeCoin that is part of this NFT community, and if you yourself have a Bored Ape, you qualify for perks like free food. All you have to do is scan your crypto wallet. Digital asset ownership = real-life something.
This to me is just one small example of the kind of new businesses that crypto and other digital assets might unlock. And I am sure that it’s the tip of the iceberg.
My unscientific Jimmy the Greek Reopening Index has led me to believe that flexible hours have resulted in more people working from home on both Mondays and Fridays. The middle of the week seems to when demand peaks for delicious lunchtime souvlaki.
But that may only be half right. According to some recent transit data from New York City, which looked at weekday subway ridership between October 2021 and March 2022, it seems to only be Mondays where people really prefer to stay at home:
What you are seeing here is subway ridership per day (with any holidays removed from the data set). Mondays, on average, saw 2,815,166 rides per day, whereas the average for non-Mondays was 3,026,371 per day. So over this particular 6 month period, Monday ridership was about 7% lower.
The probable takeaway: People seem to like to ease into the week.
I was driving to the office from the Junction last week, and I passed a brave individual waiting at this bus stop on Parkside Drive:
I immediately thought to myself, “what an undignified and silly bus stop.” There’s a little bit of paving so you have a place to stand while you’re waiting, but how do you even get there?
There are no sidewalks actually leading to said bus stop, and so you really only have two options: 1) jaywalk or 2) cross at some far away intersection and then walk unceremoniously on a narrow strip of grass and dirt on the side of a busy street.
Not surprisingly, this was the first time I had ever seen anyone waiting at this stop even though I take this route all the time on my way to and from Junction House.
I recognize that I was operating a motor vehicle when I saw this guy waiting for the bus. But I also took transit last week. And I know that we have it in us to do much better than what you’re seeing in the above street view photo.
It’s also a reminder that while High Park is really great, we need to work on its edges. Both the urban edge that I’m describing above, and the built form that surrounds our magnificent park. High Park is an urban park, but we seem to be a little uncomfortable with that idea.
We talk a lot on this blog about how best to intensify and add housing to our existing cities. But here’s alternative approach: Why not just built entirely new cities? This way you don’t have to worry about fixing any of the things that are currently broken in our existing cities or worry about messy things like community engagement.
Now, I disagree with many, or perhaps most, of the points that Nathan J. Robinson puts forward in the above Current Affairs article, but I think this is an interesting question to unpack. Robinson’s argument is that the main obstacle for building new cities in the US is ideological rather than technological. You need a bit more central government planning if you’re going to pull off a completely new urban center. And that’s not how things are generally done in the US.
However, I think the real problem is that cities have powerful network effects that encourage centralization (even if some people are working from home). It’s easy to look at a large country like Canada and say to yourself, “but look at all that empty land. How could we possibly have a housing shortage?” The reality is that most of our land is empty and cheap because it has little value. The jobs are in our cities and that’s why Canada is a largely urban country.
Indeed, this is how most cities have emerged historically. They start with some sort of economic purpose, be it an important trade route, access to resources, or some other driver of prosperity. It is for this reason that urbanists like Alain Bertaud will tell you that, typically, urban infrastructure follows the market, and not the other way around. Because who wants to live in a city with nice infrastructure but no jobs? More importantly, how long can a city without a strong economic purpose even last?
Take for example Delhi. By 2030, Delhi is expected to be the largest city in the world. This has made it exceedingly difficult for the city to build enough new housing. So government there has been focusing on building new cities on the outskirts surrounding Delhi. These cities are referred to as “counter magnets”, and their purpose is to intercept and literally attract new migrants before they reach Delhi, thereby relieving some of the urban pressures on the capital.
The fact that these cities are referred to as “counter magnets” speaks to exactly my point about centralization. It is recognition that Delhi is by far the biggest urban magnet. Because of this, these satellite cities haven’t been as successful as everyone had initially hoped. Migrants seem to still want Delhi. You can build new housing, but without jobs and economic opportunity, people will continue to flock to the biggest urban magnets.
So sooner or later, you’ll need to fix what isn’t working.
Last year was a pretty good year for people who own a home in the US (or in Canada and many other places). Current estimates peg the total value of US residential real estate at somewhere around $40 trillion.
But of course, a lot of this real estate has debt on it. The Federal Reserve considers this in their calculation of “homeowner’s equity,” and so the net number, as of the end of last year, was just over $26 trillion (see above chart). This is up from about $10 trillion in 2012, following the financial crisis.
Not surprisingly, a lot of these gains are accruing to a pretty specific demographic. According to City Observatory, about 67% of residential real estate in the US is owned by non-Hispanic white people. And about 44% of owners are 55 years or older.
Oddly enough, this also happens to be a demographic group with a disproportionate say over the kind of new housing that we’re allowed to build in our cities. Scarcity is a very good thing when you already have and own some.
