We often talk about agglomeration economies in terms of their horizontal clustering within cities. But a new paper in the Journal of Urban Economics – summarized here by Richard Florida – has looked at the other dimension: the vertical clustering of economic activity within tall buildings.
Here is an excerpt from Florida’s piece in CityLab:
Economic activity is also sorted vertically, with higher-profile and more profitable firms occupying higher building floors. Law offices are disproportionately represented on the highest floors, taking up more than a third of floor space above the 40th floor, compared to 12 percent of floor space between the second and 40th floors. Finance, insurance, and real estate take up roughly 20 percent of floor space above the 40th floor, compared to 23 percent between the second and 40th floors. Business services, engineering, and miscellaneous other industries are also more likely to take up more space below the 40th floor.
The other takeaway is that there appears to be a greater rent premium attached to higher floors (vertical movement) than for being located closer to the central business district (horizontal movement). This surprised me. But I also don’t have access to the full paper. Is the dataset just US cities?
We often talk about agglomeration economies in terms of their horizontal clustering within cities. But a new paper in the Journal of Urban Economics – summarized here by Richard Florida – has looked at the other dimension: the vertical clustering of economic activity within tall buildings.
Here is an excerpt from Florida’s piece in CityLab:
Economic activity is also sorted vertically, with higher-profile and more profitable firms occupying higher building floors. Law offices are disproportionately represented on the highest floors, taking up more than a third of floor space above the 40th floor, compared to 12 percent of floor space between the second and 40th floors. Finance, insurance, and real estate take up roughly 20 percent of floor space above the 40th floor, compared to 23 percent between the second and 40th floors. Business services, engineering, and miscellaneous other industries are also more likely to take up more space below the 40th floor.
The other takeaway is that there appears to be a greater rent premium attached to higher floors (vertical movement) than for being located closer to the central business district (horizontal movement). This surprised me. But I also don’t have access to the full paper. Is the dataset just US cities?
Nevertheless, the idea of a vertical city interests me a lot. And I agree with the authors of the report that, for perhaps obvious reasons, it is far less studied compared to horizontal development patterns.
Back when I was in grad school studying real estate, we used to refer to the below book as the “blue bible.” It is a comprehensive look at real estate finance and investments, and also development. But perhaps more importantly, it is written in a way that is clear, direct, and immensely practical to the actual world of real estate.
Nevertheless, the idea of a vertical city interests me a lot. And I agree with the authors of the report that, for perhaps obvious reasons, it is far less studied compared to horizontal development patterns.
Back when I was in grad school studying real estate, we used to refer to the below book as the “blue bible.” It is a comprehensive look at real estate finance and investments, and also development. But perhaps more importantly, it is written in a way that is clear, direct, and immensely practical to the actual world of real estate.
The reason I mention this today is because the fifth edition is out and my friend Bruce Kirsch is now an author, along with Peter Linneman. Thankfully the cover is still blue, otherwise I might be a little sad and this post wouldn’t make a lot of sense.
I have a lot of people who reach out to me on a regular basis and want to ask me about getting into real estate, and in particular, development. I try my best to make time because I was once in their shoes. Usually that means an early morning coffee in Toronto’s PATH.
My advice is fairly consistent. You have two options. Try and get your foot in the door at a shop or, if you’ve got the gall, go out and try and do it on your own. I have friends who have successfully done the latter with very little in the way of formal real estate training.
Whatever your decision, knowledge of the industry will obviously serve you well. Oftentimes I’m meeting with design and/or planning professionals who bring a lot to the table, but usually lack the finance and investments knowledge. That’s when I remind them of my story: Don’t screw up the numbers.
This is also when I suggest taking one of Bruce’s classes. I’ve taken a number of them. Because to learn how to model something in Excel you have to understand how it actually works and Bruce helps you do exactly that. Garbage in, garbage out. That’s how models work.
But the other thing one should consider doing is picking up a copy of the blue bible. I have a copy sitting on my desk right now and will tell you that it’s a “must read”, whether you’re a designer and just want to learn more about the other side of the business, or you’re an experienced real estate professional.
For more on the book, click here and then on Textbook at the top. Oh, and Bruce, congratulations on the new book!
a terrific report on Toronto’s Great Streets
. It profiles five streets in the city that have been “redesigned for greatness.” They are:
Harbord Street (continuous bike lanes)
Roncesvalles Avenue (placemaking and people)
St. Clair Avenue West (dedicated streetcar lane)
Queens Quay West (public waterfront promenade)
Market Street (prioritized for people and patios)
But what exactly makes a street a great one? The report describes it in this way: “They all play a key role in making the surrounding neighborhood a great place to live, work, and visit.”
This relates closely to what the City of Toronto calls a “complete street”, which is an approach to accommodating multiple kinds of users, enhancing the local context, and determining which trade-offs to make.
And there will always be trade-offs. I am fairly certain that all of these street redesigns were contentious at the time when they were proposed. Because at the end of the day they will never be all things to everyone.
I remember the St. Clair West fight vividly because I moved to the neighborhood in 2009 and the dedicated streetcar lane didn’t fully open until 2010. From 2005 to 2017, streetcar ridership grew 23%. But drivers have remained grouchy.
I now walk Market Street every single day and I agree that it’s one of the most beautiful and functional streets in the city. But the bollards are constantly getting beat up by drivers attempting to parallel park and the retail vacancy rate has not been 0% like is suggested in the report.
Queens Quay West is also a magnificent street. It was a giant step forward in terms of the quality of the public realm in this region and I spend a lot of time there. But it’s of course not perfect. All of us have seen the reports of cars ending up in odd locations, including underground, along the waterfront.
Riding your bike there can also feel like a challenging game of Frogger with all of the pedestrians that now obliviously meander back and forth across the cycling trail. I suggest riding with a good blow horn. The report rightly mentions the lack of delineation between these users.
But cities are a living laboratory and none of these streets should now be considered static. We are fortunate to be in a position to critique levels of greatness. If anything, the map at the top of this post tells me that we need to create more greatness across the other areas of this city.
The reason I mention this today is because the fifth edition is out and my friend Bruce Kirsch is now an author, along with Peter Linneman. Thankfully the cover is still blue, otherwise I might be a little sad and this post wouldn’t make a lot of sense.
I have a lot of people who reach out to me on a regular basis and want to ask me about getting into real estate, and in particular, development. I try my best to make time because I was once in their shoes. Usually that means an early morning coffee in Toronto’s PATH.
My advice is fairly consistent. You have two options. Try and get your foot in the door at a shop or, if you’ve got the gall, go out and try and do it on your own. I have friends who have successfully done the latter with very little in the way of formal real estate training.
Whatever your decision, knowledge of the industry will obviously serve you well. Oftentimes I’m meeting with design and/or planning professionals who bring a lot to the table, but usually lack the finance and investments knowledge. That’s when I remind them of my story: Don’t screw up the numbers.
This is also when I suggest taking one of Bruce’s classes. I’ve taken a number of them. Because to learn how to model something in Excel you have to understand how it actually works and Bruce helps you do exactly that. Garbage in, garbage out. That’s how models work.
But the other thing one should consider doing is picking up a copy of the blue bible. I have a copy sitting on my desk right now and will tell you that it’s a “must read”, whether you’re a designer and just want to learn more about the other side of the business, or you’re an experienced real estate professional.
For more on the book, click here and then on Textbook at the top. Oh, and Bruce, congratulations on the new book!
a terrific report on Toronto’s Great Streets
. It profiles five streets in the city that have been “redesigned for greatness.” They are:
Harbord Street (continuous bike lanes)
Roncesvalles Avenue (placemaking and people)
St. Clair Avenue West (dedicated streetcar lane)
Queens Quay West (public waterfront promenade)
Market Street (prioritized for people and patios)
But what exactly makes a street a great one? The report describes it in this way: “They all play a key role in making the surrounding neighborhood a great place to live, work, and visit.”
This relates closely to what the City of Toronto calls a “complete street”, which is an approach to accommodating multiple kinds of users, enhancing the local context, and determining which trade-offs to make.
And there will always be trade-offs. I am fairly certain that all of these street redesigns were contentious at the time when they were proposed. Because at the end of the day they will never be all things to everyone.
I remember the St. Clair West fight vividly because I moved to the neighborhood in 2009 and the dedicated streetcar lane didn’t fully open until 2010. From 2005 to 2017, streetcar ridership grew 23%. But drivers have remained grouchy.
I now walk Market Street every single day and I agree that it’s one of the most beautiful and functional streets in the city. But the bollards are constantly getting beat up by drivers attempting to parallel park and the retail vacancy rate has not been 0% like is suggested in the report.
Queens Quay West is also a magnificent street. It was a giant step forward in terms of the quality of the public realm in this region and I spend a lot of time there. But it’s of course not perfect. All of us have seen the reports of cars ending up in odd locations, including underground, along the waterfront.
Riding your bike there can also feel like a challenging game of Frogger with all of the pedestrians that now obliviously meander back and forth across the cycling trail. I suggest riding with a good blow horn. The report rightly mentions the lack of delineation between these users.
But cities are a living laboratory and none of these streets should now be considered static. We are fortunate to be in a position to critique levels of greatness. If anything, the map at the top of this post tells me that we need to create more greatness across the other areas of this city.
