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: Development

  • How developers in London responded to an expansion of inclusionary zoning

    Eric Jaffe, of Sidewalk Labs, recently wrote about an interesting research paper — from the Journal of the American Planning Association — that looked at the developer response to an inclusionary zoning policy change in London. The full research paper can be found over here.

    The change was an expansion to existing mandatory IZ policies. Between 2005 and 2008, each of the 33 local authorities in Greater London reduced the minimum threshold for new housing projects. Previously it only applied to new developments with 15 or more units, but it was reduced to projects with 10 or more units. In other words, projects with a total of 10-14 units were now subject to IZ, whereas they were previously exempt.

    These feel like small unit counts, but I guess it speaks to the scale of development happening in London. You generally need pretty high prices to make these kinds of boutique projects pencil out. By comparison, the IZ threshold here in Toronto is expected to be 100 or more units.

    In any event, here’s what happened in London:

    Before the policy change developers were effectively building up to the 14 unit mark (to avoid IZ). Following that new supply dropped off. After the change, developers simply adjusted their project sizes and built more projects with less than 10 units.

    Interestingly enough, the researchers found that there was generally no net loss of new homes during the study period (2004 to 2014); developers simply built more projects with lower unit counts. But more importantly, the team discovered that the policy change only kind of worked.

    The increase in affordable housing was modest. The researchers uncovered a net increase of two affordable units per borough, per year, among projects within the 10-14 unit band. That’s something. But London is a big place.

    Of course, this is a response to a particular kind of policy change in a particular kind of market. Development is a local business and it’s oftentimes hard to generalize. But it does speak to the fact that there are nuances, complexities, and market distortions to consider when it comes to land use policies.

    Photo by Aaron Gilmore on Unsplash

  • Toronto has issued nearly 200 building permits for laneway suites — is that enough?

    We talk a lot on this blog about laneway housing and ADUs, including, of course, the one that Globizen built earlier this year. But beyond being exceedingly cool (see above), what has this policy change meant at the macro level? To what extent is it actually helping housing supply? Let’s consider Toronto.

    As a reminder, “laneway suites” became permissible in the former/old City of Toronto in 2018. The policies where then expanded to the entire city of Toronto in the summer of 2019. So we’ve had just over 2 years of this housing type being fully allowed city-wide.

    Though it’s worth keeping in mind that there are only so many laneways in Toronto (which is why “garden suites” are going to be important and may actually end up being more impactful):

    Between the introduction of laneway suites and June 2021, the City of Toronto received 306 permit applications to construct, of which 238 were associated with a unique address (the same address can have multiple permit applications).

    During this same time period, 183 permits were issued. 107 were still under review at the time this report was written. 15 were refused. And 1 was classified as “unknown”, which I guess means it got lost in the ether or under someone’s desk.

    Some of you will probably argue that this isn’t enough new housing for a city of 3 million people with high home prices, high demand, and high immigration. And I would agree.

    But it’s still early days, there will be an adoption curve, and the policies are still being tweaked to further remove some of the barriers associated with delivering this housing type. Of the 238 unique addresses that submitted a permit application, just over a quarter of them had an associated minor variance application, which means that they did not fully conform to the current laneway suite by-law.

    The most common obstacles appear to be the 1.5m laneway setback, the soft landscaping requirements, and the required fire access. But I know that there are others too. I could have used another foot or two in height on mine.

    But as I mentioned before, there are more areas in this city without laneways than with. And so garden suites are going to be an integral component of city-wide ADUs. This will certainly help the adoption curve.

    I continue to believe that these are all steps in the right direction and that this is an exciting time for Toronto. We are in the midst of transforming our laneways. But we’re not done yet. We’re going to have to make many other tough decisions in order to further increase housing supply. I’m positive we’ll get there.

  • The future of parking is a lot less of it — at least here in Toronto

    I was having a conversation this week with a few friends in the industry about the future of parking. We were specifically talking about Toronto, but I would imagine that much of this holds true for many other cities around the world.

    Here in Toronto, it’s not uncommon to see new parking spaces in central locations selling for upwards of $200k. For those that are not in the industry and not seeing the work and immense costs that go into building parking, this often comes as a surprise.

    But as I have said many times before on the blog, parking is often a significant loss leader for new developments. Even at relatively high prices, most developers aren’t covering their costs. So developers naturally aren’t racing out to build more of it. They’re trying to build just what is absolutely necessary for the market.

    Given the strong incentives to build less parking, it’s no surprise that parking ratios continue to decline. But consider some of the other parking headwinds:

    • Parking minimums are (hopefully) set to be removed
    • Push toward watertight undergrounds across the city (higher costs)
    • Tipping fees for disposing of contaminated soil (higher costs)
    • Increasing development charges / levies (higher costs)
    • Introduction of inclusionary zoning (higher costs)
    • Inflationary construction cost environment (again, higher costs)

    There is a lag between changing cost structures and what the end consumer sees and feels. Junction House, for example, is fully tendered from a construction standpoint and so we are building with a kind of historic cost structure that would be impossible to replicate today. When the next project comes around, they’ll have higher costs and will have to price their homes accordingly.

    As rising costs and new policies (like the ones I mention above) begin to work their way through the system, I think it’s fairly obvious that parking ratios will continue to be one of the first things that gets looked at and ultimately chopped down. This will make parking even more scarce in the city and surely far more expensive.

    (Back in 2018, Hong Kong had the record for the most expensive parking spot in the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if it still holds this title.)

    But as I have argued before, I am of the opinion that building around the car is not the way to build big and well-functioning global cities. Many of us recognize that we need to focus on alternative forms of transport — everything from public transit to new micro-mobility solutions. And given where costs are going, I don’t think we’ll have much choice.

    Photo by Sven Mieke on Unsplash

  • San Francisco’s “Monster on Sixth Street” rejected by Board of Supervisors

    So, this seems dumb.

    San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors recently voted 8-3 in favor of rejecting a new 495-unit residential project at 469 Stevenson Street in SoMa. The property is currently a parking lot used by Nordstrom.

    Of the project’s 495 units, 73 were to be offered at affordable rents (about 14% of the project). In addition, the developer was prepared to donate a nearby parcel for additional off-site affordable housing. This would have brought the total count up to 118 units (or about 1/4 of the project).

    Apparently gentrification was a serious concern with this project:

    “It’s very clear to me that this will have a very significant displacement and social-economic impact on the Sixth Street corridor, on the Filipino community, and the broader low-income community here,” said District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton.

    The mayor seems to get it though:

    “This project met all the criteria for approval, and it would have created 500 new homes on what is currently a parking lot surrounded by tall buildings, located near transit,” Breed told the Chronicle. “We can’t keep rejecting new housing and then wondering why rents keep rising.”

  • Hong Kong needs bigger apartments

    CityLab recently published this article about “why Hong Kong is building apartments the size of parking spaces.” It’s about the city’s “microflats” which are typically in the range of 150 to 300 square feet. Supposedly there about 8,500 of these apartments across Hong Kong and in 2019 (this was apparently peak microflat) they represented about 7% of all new residential construction.

    Hong Kong is one of the densest and most supply constrained real estate markets on the planet. And so there are very good reasons for these affordability pressures and the push toward smaller apartments. The article gets into a number of them. The concern I have is that the article also seems to blame developers for a number of these problems, without a clear understanding of the economics behind new construction.

    It is not enough to simply say that developers need to be less greedy and build bigger apartments. If a 250 sf apartment currently costs $1 million and you think it should be twice as big, then the price is now also going to be somewhere around twice as big. Is the answer more $2 million apartments? Developers trade in space and more space costs more money to build.

    All of this is not to say that housing affordability isn’t a problem worth addressing. It of course is. I am simply saying that there is a cost structure behind every new development that is driving decision making and driving what ultimately gets built. Understanding it can be helpful when looking for solutions. Believe it or not, not all developers are bad. Some actually want to help build beautiful, sustainable, and prosperous cities.

  • The real smart city is going to be a crypto city

    Vitalik Buterin — who is best known as the cofounder of Ethereum — recently penned this post on his blog where he argues that “crypto cities broadly are an idea whose time has come.” (Credit to Shamez Virani for sending the post to me this morning.) There has been a lot of discussion over the years about the rise of smart cities. I for one am not really sure what that means besides the fact that it sounds good and it likely involves a bunch of tech and data collection. But maybe crypto can help.

    What Vitalik argues in his post is that we are now at a point in time where blockchain technologies have the opportunity to do two things for cities. One, we can take existing systems and processes and use blockchains to make them more “trusted, transparent, and verifiable.” That would be a very good thing. But the more interesting one is number two. We have the opportunity to use blockchains to create radically new forms of asset ownership (land and other scarce assets) and municipal governance.

    One specific example is that of a “city coin”, which cities like Miami are already experimenting with. Supposedly they are one of the first, which of course aligns with Mayor Suarez’s vision to position Miami as a preeminent tech and crypto hub. Though as Vitalik points out in his post, it’s important to maintain some optionality, especially since we are still very much in the early innings of this new frontier. (This recent episode on the Tim Ferriss Show had a great analogy in saying that the anthem at the beginning of the game isn’t even over yet.)

    So how might a “city coin” living on a blockchain work?

    Well let’s imagine that there are incentives in place for all of us who live in Toronto to own the Toronto coin (there’s still time to come up with a better name). You need it to pay your property taxes, you need it to pay for parking, and you need it to vote in the next election, among many other things. So there’s an incentive to buy and hold it if you’re a resident of this great city, but there is far less incentive to hold it if you don’t live here. (Maybe you own a bit of it because you’re a frequent visitor and/or your relatives live here.)

    One of the interesting things about something like this is that it would immediately create economic alignment. Now all of a sudden, everyone who lives in Toronto and owns Toronto coin would have a vested interest in seeing Toronto thrive. At the very least they would want to see the coin hold its value and ideally they would hope to see it appreciate.

    At the same time, the Toronto coin could be used for all sorts of governance matters. Take for example, land use and zoning decisions. What if we set things up such that these decisions weren’t made by the people who show up to community meetings in the basement of their local church but that they were instead made by everyone who holds the Toronto coin? i.e. The entire city, all of whom are, in a way, equity holders.

    In theory we could do this kind of voting today. However, part of the problem is that the economic alignment isn’t there without something like a Toronto coin. Right now a big part of the economic incentive rests with homeownership. If I own a home and a new development is proposed next to me, I am incentivized to do whatever it takes to selfishly maximize my own individual outcomes. And if that means no development and no more homes for people, then so be it.

    But what if we all had part of our net worth tied up in the Toronto coin? And what if when housing supply did not meet housing demand, the value of our coins dropped because it meant fewer residents (less demand for Toronto coin) and more people voting with their feet and moving to other geographies (more demand for some other coin)? This is one of the things about the crypto space. It turns everyone into evangelists because there are now strong economic incentives to be that way.

    Who knows if this is the way that things will actually play out. But it is part of the promise of crypto and it is not some pipe dream. It is already starting to take hold around the world and in the US in places like Wyoming and Colorado. For more on this topic, make sure to check out Vitalik’s full blog post.

  • Schematic design phase complete for Parkview Mountain House

    Some of you may be aware that Globizen is working on a new project in Park City, Utah right now called the Parkview Mountain House.

    It was first announced on the Globizen Journal back in the summer and then a later announcement was made appointing New York-based Mattaforma as the project architect. It’s kind of a great story because Mattaforma is a relatively new firm that was formed by two architects who used to be at Studio Gang. So we have a long history of working together.

    The vision for the project is a creative retreat in the mountains. A place to unplug, be active, and hopefully a place to foster creative expression, whatever that may be for you. It was inspired by the trip that I have been making to the mountains each year where we try and do exactly this. It’s one of my favorite times of the year and one that I look forward to the minute the last one is over.

    The team has just finished the schematic design phase for the house (see above axonometric). And we are now working through some of the structural and geotechnical issues that come with building in the mountains on very steep terrain.

    To give you all one example, we had initially contemplated large multi-storey retaining walls to hold back the earth and embed the house into the side of the mountain. But that is now being changed to a stepped foundation that minimizes the amount of excavation and reduces each retaining wall to no more than a single storey. This move will also result in more wood and less concrete. It has been a fun learning process.

    The creative retreat concept has also been evolving and we recently decided to make digital NFT art an integral part of the experience. We have a few collections that we have been stocking up on, but if any of you have any recommendations we are, of course, all ears.

    Once the floor plans have been finalized, they’ll be posted up on the Globizen Journal. So make sure to e-mail subscribe and follow along on Instagram at @parkviewhousepc.

  • Offline and online

    I was out for dinner this week with a group of real estate developers. And as you might expect, we spent the majority of the time talking about real estate and complaining about how long things take. But a good chunk of time was also spent pontificating about the world of crypto. That’s what happens these days. In fact, one of my friends joked that my/this blog used to be a real estate and cities blog, but now it’s a crypto blog. It’s a joke, but I guess it’s becoming partially true.

    For as long as I can remember, I have always been interested in what’s new and what’s next. And I think this is next. So I’m reading, playing, thinking, and writing about it. And the more I do these things, the more my conviction grows. But what really did it for me was the hands-on playing around part. I’m not interested in owning a crypto ETF (the US is about to get its first bitcoin ETF based on futures contracts). I want to own the cryptocurrencies directly so I can see what they can do and how everything works. (Though I will say that this space is still not very user friendly.)

    One of the things that comes to mind as I continue to play is the future interrelationship between our offline and online worlds. Because already we are living in a world where people now buy and collect rent on virtual real estate in places like Decentraland (REITs are even starting to emerge). Where parties happen online instead of offline (but still attract big name DJs). Where people buy digital fashion instead of physical fashion, and pay just as much for it and sometimes even more. And where augmented reality is changing how we experience our cities in real life. A few weeks ago, I came across a park in Paris that had partnered with Snapchat to deliver an AR experience, to give just one example.

    These are meaningful shifts that are gaining traction (and this post is by no means an exhaustive list). And while I remain steadfast in my belief that cities are profoundly resilient and real-world experiences are irreplaceable, I do believe that our emerging digital worlds are going to have an impact on how we design and build our cities going forward. From art murals of NFTs to entire new virtual worlds, this is an exciting time for cities and technology.

    Enjoy the weekend.

  • Affordable housing for all?

    Bloomberg CityLab has a new video out talking about how Vienna has seemingly solved the housing unaffordability problem that is impacting most global cities around the world. Each year Vienna builds about 14,000 new housing units and about half of this is supply is “affordable.” Already over 60% of Viennese live in an affordable home. The title of the video suggests that their approach is radical, but is that really the case?

    What was clear to me when I watched the video is that there are perhaps two key differences in terms of how Vienna approaches this problem. One, they quite simply care about delivering high-quality affordable housing to the middle class. They think it’s culturally important and they believe that architecture and design matters. Two, they are willing to invest in it, both up front and over time (maintenance).

    In the video, the former Vice Mayor of Vienna talks about how the City will go out and buy land (or use already owned land) and then make it available (sale or lease) at discounted rates so that it makes economic sense for non-profit housing developers. If the math still doesn’t work for the private sector, then there are other subsidies available.

    I’m certainly not an expert on Vienna’s approach to housing delivery. And I’m not suggesting it’s perfect. My knowledge base comes largely from one 13 minute episode by CityLab. But I think it’s notable that I didn’t pickup anything in the video about inclusionary zoning leading the way (which I have argued before tends to shift the burden to the remaining market rate housing units). Instead, they value it and they invest in it. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

    Image: CityLab

  • There is no effort without error and shortcoming

    I had a blog post planned out in my mind for today. I was going to write about how the Penthouse Collection launch went this evening at One Delisle (our new website just went live), and the digital NFT art (by Petra Cortright) that we commissioned to accompany each of the 8 penthouse residences.

    But then my partner Lucas Manuel sent out the below quote by Theodore Roosevelt in one of our group chats and it derailed everything. I think it’s imperative that it gets reshared here immediately:

    It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

    There is no effort without error and shortcoming. But in the worst of cases, that means failing while daring greatly. Because failing while daring greatly is better than not daring at all. These are words to live by. And I would like to think that our team’s efforts to bring digital NFT art to Toronto’s condominium market is daring on some level.

    What is clear to me after speaking with a lot of people this evening is that most people don’t know what an NFT is and they don’t know how this all works. But at the same time, they recognize that real and meaningful change is underway. (I was on Global TV this evening trying to explain this stuff.)

    We may be the first (at least here in Toronto), but I would put money on the fact that we won’t be the last developer to incorporate NFTs into their projects. And that’s a good thing. We should all be building on top of each other’s work. Let’s dare greatly.