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

Category: Business

  • What happened in 2022 and how I did on my predictions

    It has become tradition around here that at the end of each year I write down my predictions for the following one. And in 2022, I did that here. The overarching point of writing something like this down publicly is not necessarily to be right (because you can do that through obvious predictions). The point is to dedicate time to thinking (which is oftentimes hard to do throughout the year), to search for non-obvious things, and to generally be okay with being wrong. So I plan to do this again in the coming weeks for 2023.

    But first, let’s see how I did with my 2022 predictions:

    1. COVID: I argued that 2022 would be the year that the pandemic becomes endemic and it reaches a point where it no longer factors into decision making in the same way that it has since 2020. Some of you may disagree whether this is a good thing, but I would still say that this happened, at least in this part of the world. I started the year in lockdown here in Toronto and I ended the year having taken multiple overseas trips where testing was no longer required. (Right)
    2. Return to office: I was kind of close. I thought that the majority of people would be back in their offices by September. I didn’t say that hybrid/flex work was going to disappear, but that we would see a great return. That did happen, according to my super scientific Jimmy the Greek Reopening Index. But if you look at the latest swipe card data for the 10 largest US cities, average occupancy is hovering just below 50%, which is not a majority. (Wrong)
    3. Recreational/fringe housing: I felt very strongly that we would see a pullback in residential real estate this year, specifically recreational properties and properties in tertiary markets. This 100% happened, but I’ll be honest in that I was not thinking about the interest rate hikes that we saw. I just saw it as a pandemic bubble. I also thought that apartment rents would do very well and surpass pre-pandemic levels. This happened in many markets. (Right)
    4. Return of travel: Yup. (Right, but maybe too obvious?)
    5. Intensification of single-family home neighborhoods: This continued to be an important topic in 2022. Did we see some a tipping point-like moment, like I had predicted? I think it depends on the market, but here in Toronto we did see things like Bill 23, as well as additional efforts on the part of Mayor John Tory. (Right)
    6. Autonomous vehicles: Progress was made this year. You can now hail an autonomous taxi in places like San Francisco. But I also thought that this would be a fantastic year for Uber as the world reopened, and that they’d finally become profitable. As of Q3 of this year, that had not happened. (Wrong)
    7. Public transit and micromobility: I got the public transit ridership piece correct. I assumed that ridership levels would remain depressed. Perhaps an obvious one. But I also figured that e-scooters would be one of the main beneficiaries. While it is true that e-scooters remain very popular, particularly with French people, we did see ridership decline in the US, as the availability of cheap capital waned. (Mostly right)
    8. NFTs and augmented reality: There’s a lot happening in this digital world and I continue to be incredibly bullish. But we are certainly in a “crypto winter.” I also thought that Apple would announce something big related to augmented reality this year, but supposedly that has been pushed to next year. (Wrong)
    9. Climate change and carbon prices: I thought that the price of carbon on the EU’s Emissions Trading System would surge this year. It did not. Right now it’s looking like it’ll end up being fairly flat for the year. Of course, I also had no idea that Russia would do terrible terrible things to Ukraine, which has had dramatic impact on energy markets. (Wrong)
    10. More crypto (Ethereum, Bitcoin, and Solana): Well, I got this last one really wrong. ETH is down ~70% over the last year relative to the US dollar. I was not predicting a “crypto winter.” And I did not know that Sam Bankman-Fried was operating a weird cult-like ponzi scheme out of a penthouse in the Bahamas. None of this changes my views on crypto, but I was still wrong in 2022. (Wrong)

    Looks like I’m somewhere around 5/10.

    Stay tuned for my predictions for 2023. In the meantime, if any of you have predictions of your own, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below or on Twitter.

  • This is not a hotel

    I am not the target market for Restoration Hardware, I mean RH. But I do think it is interesting the way they are evolving their brand. At the beginning of 2021, the company announced a $105 million equity investment in a development project in Aspen, where it is planning a new guesthouse and, more broadly, a new “RH ecosystem” that will include residences, restaurants, a spa, etc. It hasn’t opened yet, but RH does now have a guesthouse in New York. To be clear, it is not a hotel:

    So what is RH trying to do with all this?

    Surface Magazine recently argued that they are trying to become the “public” version of Soho House. That is, a lifestyle omni-brand that isn’t membership-based, but that will still make you feel rich and special while you eat, sleep, play, and shop for various things for your home. Now, I do think that their target customers aren’t exactly the same person. But of course, I see the parallels. And it’s certainly interesting from an experiential retail, brand ecosystem, and real estate development standpoint. It gets the brand everywhere.

  • The next hot thing

    When I was in grad school at Penn I was active in two clubs: the real estate club and some tech/entrepreneurship club (I can’t remember the exact name). These were two areas that I was interested in and so I wanted to hang out with people who were also interested in these things and I wanted to hear from experienced people who were active in these fields.

    At that time, which was before the Great Recession, the real estate club was bigger and more active than the tech club. I think it was something like 3 to 1. But I remember one of my professors telling me that participation across the various clubs generally ebbs and flows. Before the dot-com bubble, the tech club was where you wanted to be. But that asset bubble had burst, and so people had moved onto real estate, which, at that time, was in the midst of creating its own asset bubble.

    What we students were effectively doing — by way of deciding where to spend our time — was chasing the next hot thing. They were chasing where they thought they’d be able to make the most money coming out of school. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this. The pursuit of profit is fundamental to capitalism. But at the same time, I think it’s crucially important to have some conviction.

    Right now we are going through another cycle. Real estate was hot last year and it is not right now. Tech was hot last year and it is not right now. NFTs were hot last year and they are not right now. The list goes on. But if you like these things and if you have some conviction, is it really the time to move onto the next club? You may find the opposite to be true. Now is actually the time to ramp up participation.

  • This may not actually work

    I am, of course, generalizing, but we live in a world of comparables and proof. In the slightly-modified words of Seth Godin, we have been trained to show up with proven and verifiable answers because that’s what will get us an A on the test or what will allow us to keep our jobs. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Risk mitigation is an important part of any organization. But if everything you’re doing is already proven, then by definition, and regardless of any claims, you are not innovating. Because if something is truly new, then it may not actually work.

    My friend David Wex — who is on a mission to develop modern condominiums all across Canada — once told me that if he were to hire consultants to prepare market studies for his projects (he doesn’t), they would almost always tell him never to build. And that’s because there are often no comparables to point to and say, “look at this thing over here, it shows that somebody has already done this before and has been successful.” Instead, he has been forced to ask himself, “is there no comparable product offering because the market doesn’t exist or because nobody has done it yet?”

    This is a risky proposition. Because if you’re wrong — and the market doesn’t exist — then you will likely fail. But if you’re right, and you get to introduce something new to people that want it, then you get the benefit of a commanding market position. You were right about something that most people thought was wrong and/or didn’t bother to explore. That’s why Seth Godin has argued that innovation really requires two things. It requires guts, because the thing you’re trying may not work. And it requires generosity, because innovation is, after all, about trying to make things better.

    I think this is a great way of putting it.

  • Use-it-or-lose-it entitlements

    One of the things that cities often try and stamp out is speculation. Homes should not sit empty (enter vacant home tax). Storefronts should not sit empty (enter vacant commercial tax). And development land should not sit undeveloped. To correct this latter problem, one idea that is sometimes floated around is “use-it-or-lose-it” zoning.

    The way it works today in, I believe, most cities, is that if you do a site-specific rezoning on a property — and secure additional density — you get those special permissions forever. If you want to wait 100 years before starting construction, you are technically entitled to do that. Of course, in the interim, no new housing is actually being created. It’s all just on paper.

    The idea with “use-it-or-lose-it” entitlements is that — instead of these permissions lasting forever — they would expire after a certain period of time, which would mean that the entire rezoning process would need to be done all over again. These take time (at least a few years) and cost money (it’s in the millions). And so it has been suggested that this would incentivize developers to not sit on entitled land.

    While I do understand where this line of thinking is coming from, let me make a few points:

    • Generally speaking, most developers don’t just sit on entitled land for fun. They need things to happen, and to happen quickly, so that value can be realized. If there is a problem of too many developers not actually building, it could be a sign that there are other market factors impacting feasibility.
    • There is nothing wrong with rezoning a property and then “flipping it out” to another developer. This is often viewed negatively. But some developers only rezone properties and some developers only buy zoned sites. These can be different phases of the value chain. A rezoning can take years and millions of dollars, and so sometimes developers don’t have the wherewithal or desire to do both.
    • A use-it-or-lose-it approach unfairly punishes developers during market cycles and bear markets, like the one we are experiencing right now. There is no way to predict when the next global pandemic will hit, when construction costs might surge 40%, and when the fed could start rapidly increasing rates to calm inflation. Maybe waiting out the storm is all you can do.
    • If you’re building condominium housing in our market, you generally need pre-sales in order to secure a construction loan. Let’s call it 70% pre-sold. What happens if this takes longer than expected? And what happens if you sell 50%, your site-specific rezoning expires, and then you have to restart the entire process? At this point and in this current market environment, you would likely have to cancel the entire project and reboot it.
    • Timing is important. To give a specific project example, we had planned to launch condominium pre-sales for our One Delisle project in the fall of 2020. And we were ready to do that. But sentiment didn’t feel right. Too pandemic-y still, and so we waited until the spring of 2021. This turned out to be the right decision. But what would have happened had we had this timing gun to our head? (Truthfully, it always feels like there’s a timing gun to our head.)
    • I have written about this before, but go-to-market strategies are changing in this current environment. It is taking longer to start sales and construction because, among other things, developers are spending more time trying to pin down their construction costs. Would rezoning expiries take all of this into consideration and adjust accordingly?
    • Finally, if one is going to do something like force developers to pull all of their building permits within X months of receiving zoning approvals — or else suffer the consequences — then everything required to get there should also have a maximum timeline associated with it. In other words, cities would also need to do things like commit to issuing permits within Y months of receiving a submission — or else. It’s only fair that this cuts both ways. But just to be very, very clear, I do not think this is a good idea.

    What I am broadly saying is that (1) development is a pain in the ass and (2) developers are already heavily incentivized to move quickly and make things happen. It is not uncommon for projects to take 5-10 years from site acquisition to completion. And a lot of unexpected things can happen during that time period. Hopefully losing your entitlements doesn’t become one of them.

  • Miami is the top US city for foreign businesses

    The Financial Times and Nikkei have just published their inaugural Investing in America report, which looks at the best US cities for foreign multinationals to invest in and do business in.

    To come up with this, they used about three dozen different metrics — everything from openness to quality of life. From what I can tell though, it doesn’t appear that climate risk factored much into this ranking. It should.

    There’s a lot of Florida on this list and Miami comes out on top, largely because, last year, it had the most foreign direct investment per capita of any US city. It also has a well-connected airport, two of the largest shipping ports in the US, and an international population.

    Lots of people and companies are going long Miami right now.

  • How many days a week are you in the office?

    At the end of August, our office closed for two weeks so that we could shuffle a bunch of desks around. During that time, we all worked remotely. I spent one week working from home and one week working from Utah. Being in Utah in the summer was, of course, a great treat. Everybody appreciates having more rather than less flexibility in how they structure their workday.

    But at the same time, being away from the office reminded me just how much I hate working from home. I hate the onslaught of calls and zooms that ensue when you’re not proximate to the people you work with. I hate being distracted by the thought that I should probably do a load of laundry. And importantly, I also find that I have less energy.

    One of the ways that extroverts and introverts are often defined is according to where they derive their energy from. The former is said to derive more of their energy from being around other people and the latter is said to derive their energy from being by themselves. Introverts need time to recharge. Of course, most people probably need both of these things. I certainly do.

    But I think this is an important consideration as we all debate work-from-home policies. I enjoy being in the office. And I can tell you that our team overwhelmingly does as well. People were starting to get antsy during our two week hiatus. But not everybody feels the same way, which is why I wasn’t expecting this (the above) Twitter poll result.

    At the time of writing this post there were fewer than 200 responses. But even with limited data points, I was expecting more of a bell curve, with the majority of people doing some sort of hybrid thing. That is not the case here. The results were fairly equal with 5 days a week having a slight edge. My sense is that WFH is continuing to wane.

    But I don’t know, you tell me: What is your work routine right now and what would you consider optimal?

  • The fast-foodification of cities

    Greg Isenberg recently wrote about what he refers to as the fast-foodification of everything — including cities. His arguments are that (1) we have reached peak sameness (Toronto is largely indistinguishable from, say, Sydney) and (2) the best brands and companies going forward will be local, unique, and community-driven.

    I don’t know how to assess whether we have reached peak sameness, but I do know that, whatever we are experiencing right now, is at a minimum 100 years in the making. The International Style (of architecture), which emerged after WWI, is exactly what the name suggests. The intent was to fashion an approach to architecture that worked anywhere in the world. Location, climate, and context were all irrelevant.

    This approach has been widely criticized for the reasons you might expect and for the reasons that Isenberg outlines in his post. But sameness is not exclusively the result of European architects who wanted to eschew ornament and local flourishes. As the world continues to globalize and become “smaller”, there is an inevitability to this growing and continued sameness. Business wants economies of scale.

    But there is no question that, more than ever, people are craving unique and local experiences and places. And if you can create that in our globalized world, you are going to win.

  • Proximity matters for knowledge spillovers

    I am at my most creative when I’m in the same room with other people and we are bouncing ideas around. There’s a compounding effect that takes place. One person says something and that then triggers a new idea. I find the whole experience very rewarding and, for me, it’s a reminder that creativity can be a process. It is also a reminder that proximity is important for those of us who have jobs that deal in creativity.

    We have spoken a lot about this on the blog, but here is an interesting and recent study that looked at knowledge transfers across different tech startups within one of the largest co-working spaces in the US. For context, the co-working space itself consisted of five floors, about 100,000 square feet, and housed 251 different startups. To measure knowledge transfer, the researchers looked at instances of a startup adopting a component of a peer’s technology stack.

    What they found was the following:

    • Knowledge exchange is greater amongst startups that are dissimilar
    • Close physical proximity greatly influences the chance of knowledge spillovers; however, this effect quickly falls off
    • After 20 meters or so, there’s almost no difference between being down the hall or being on a separate floor within the building
    • One of the ways you can counteract this last finding is to create shared spaces; startups with overlapping common areas, such as a kitchen, saw greater distances of influence

    In short: proximity matters.

    If you’d like to download a full copy of the study, click here.

  • Super-entrepreneurs by region

    A super-entrepreneur, according to the common definition, is a rich person who has amassed a net worth of at least US$1 billion dollars by either starting a company or taking a small company and growing it into a big one. A super-entrepreneur is, by definition, not someone who inherited their wealth. Though I’m not sure what the cut off is. If you inherited $1 million and then started a massive company, does that still make you a super-entrepreneur? What about if you inherited $100 million?

    In any event, here is a chart from New Geography showing super-entrepreneurs by region:

    The USA is in the lead in this chart at about 3.1 super-entrepreneurs per one million inhabitants. But the highest rate in the world, at least according to this data set, actually belongs to Singapore at 4.7 per million. Europe, as a whole, doesn’t look all that great here. But again, if you get more specific, some European countries are actually doing quite well. Sweden, for instance, is sitting at around 2 per million, which is higher than Canada’s figure.

    Why this data is potentially interesting is that it tells you a bit about these countries. It tells you whether they have strong property rights, whether it’s easy to conduct business, and whether it’s supportive of new ideas, among, of course, many other things. There also appears to be a clear link between the presence of super-entrepreneurs and unemployment. Turns out that the more people you have starting wildly successful businesses, the lower unemployment tends to be.

    For the full New Geography article, click here. In addition to what I just wrote about, it talks about Europe’s “entrepreneurial paradox” and issues of gender equality.