To be a real estate developer, or at least to be a good real estate developer, I think you need to have a certain kind of personality. Specifically, I think you need to be an optimist.
Because if you’re going to take big risks and deal with lots of uncertainty – which is how most development projects work – then you have to believe that you’re going to be able to figure it all out and make it happen.
That is not to say that you’re not worried about risk and you’re not thinking critically about what you’re doing. Managing risk is a hugely important part of the business.
Rather it’s accepting that unexpected things will come up, whether it’s a small construction hiccup or a huge black swan event. And knowing that if and when that happens, you’re going to do whatever it takes to get through it.
As an example, I remember a developer telling me a story about one of his projects in South Florida. This was back when I was in grad school so some of the details are a bit fuzzy.
But basically he had excavated a site for an underground parking garage and they had just finished pouring the foundations and first underground level. (Because of its high water table, underground parking garages are rare and expensive to build in South Florida.)
It’s then 2 ’clock in the morning and he gets a call from his engineer telling him that a hurricane is coming through. And that once it comes through the water is going to lift up his foundation from below and basically destroy it.
They immediately start brainstorming solutions and the engineer ultimately decides that if they fill up the hole with water before the hurricane comes through that it will weigh down the built structure and keep it intact.
So in the middle of the night, before a storm was about to hit, they’re all on-site pumping water into a big hole.
The storm eventually came and went and the engineer was right: the water-filled hole kept everything in place. So instead of spending what could have been millions, the developer probably spent tens of thousands on a water bill. That’s a much easier pill to swallow.
This, of course, wasn’t in the development pro forma or in the construction schedule. But it happened, as stuff invariably does. And for future projects, I’m sure it’ll be something he thinks about it.
But it’s all part of the game. And to be good at the game, I believe you need to be an optimist.
Vancouver BC City Skyline and Stanley Park by Jit Lim on 500px
In the comment section of my post about Vancouver’s transit referendum, a reader suggested I take a look at an article by Peter McMartin called, The real Vancouver emerges (from the ruins of the plebiscite).
McMartin’s argument is basically that Vancouverism – the name given to the city’s progressive architecture and planning approach – isn’t as widespread as it might seem. The reality is that Vancouver, much like Toronto and other cities, is divided.
“Vancouverism might be a reality for two or three neighbourhoods huddling in the downtown, and that greener, more progressive ethos might hold sway in one or two more.
But Vancouver — and I speak of it in the metro sense — is the sum of its parts, and most of its parts are suburban in their sensibilities, and that includes not just all of the suburbs but most of the neighbourhoods in the City of Vancouver proper.
They’re resistant to change. They abhor densification. They’re conventional in their sensibilities and they’re highly dependent on the automobile. More importantly, they’re not just dependent on the automobile, they prefer it.”
Here in Toronto, we know our city is divided. And many people see it as evidence that amalgamating the city in 1998 was a big mistake. The inner suburbs are holding back old Toronto and elitist old Toronto just doesn’t understand the priorities of the inner suburbs.
But I’m not convinced that amalgamation is to blame.
Most cities have long histories of amalgamating adjacent towns, villages, and cities, and I suspect that there was opposition all along the way. At what point is amalgamation acceptable and and what point is it problematic?
The anti-amalgamation camp here in Toronto seems to believe that it would have allowed old Toronto to continue doing what it wants to do and allowed the inner suburbs to do what they want to do.
But this to me feels parochial.
Our cities need to think bigger than that. We need to think as cohesive urban regions. And as Vancouver demonstrated this past week, that’s not always easy. But I don’t think the answer is to just think smaller and ignore the people whose views don’t match our own.
Interestingly enough, what a lot of this comes down to, I think, is built form.
Because different kinds of built form will encourage and often mandate different kinds of transportation choices. And how you get around a city will inform a big part of what you value and what you vote for.
Over time though, I believe that we will see built form start to level out across our city regions through continued intensification. Many people won’t be happy about this change. But it is likely that it will end up creating more cohesive cities.
Built form is no small thing.
One of the most interesting projects being proposed in Toronto right now is 363 Yonge Street, which is located downtown at the southeast corner of Yonge Street and Gerrard Street. See above hero rendering.
The project is a two tower mixed-use development with the following stats (as per their rezoning application dated April 24, 2015):
73 storey tower to the north (inclusive of podium)
62 storey to the south (inclusive of podium)
9 storey podium containing office and retail
887,752 square feet of residential
101,062 square feet of retail
186,977 square feet of office
Site area is 42,248 square feet (proposed density on the site works out to be about 27x)
1,106 residential units – 107 bachelor (9.7%), 648 one-bedroom (58.6%), 241 two-bedroom (21.8%), and 110 three-bedroom (9.9%)
289 parking spaces – 221 spaces for residents, 23 spaces for visitors, 23 spaces for retail, and 22 for office
9,790 square feet of outdoor amenity space and 23,809 square feet of indoor amenity space for the residences (the “skybridge” that connects the two towers at the 51st and 52nd floors is amenity space)
9,809 square feet of outdoor amenity space for the commercial spaces
The site also contains 2 listed heritage buildings. The Gerrard Building and The Richard S. Williams Block. The project proposes to incorporate 3 of their facades (not the entire buildings) into the base of the new development.
Here are a few images of what that might look like at street level (going from north to south along Yonge Street):
I am also delighted to see that they are planning on adding retail to the rear laneway (O’Keefe Lane) that runs behind the site, east of Yonge Street. If you’re a regular reader of this blog you’ll know that I think Toronto’s laneways are a huge missed opportunity. So it’s great to see developers in this city starting to recognize that.
Here’s a photo of what O’Keefe Lane looks like today (courtesy of Google street view):
Since I’ve only done one other “project profile” on this blog, I’d love to get your feedback in the comments on whether or not you find these useful.
For those of us in the industry, it’s always valuable to look at other projects and dissect the square footages, unit mix, density, parking ratios, and so on. But I recognize that this is a particular lens.
I’m also trying not to be so Toronto-centric, so it would be great to hear how this project compares to what you’re seeing in your city.
All project images: Quadrangle Architects