Category: Development

• Two minutes to the subway

  I was in a meeting the other day and we started talking about a wayfinding sign that indicated it was a 10 minute walk to the nearest subway station. We wondered who had made this sign and ultimately decided that the number should be 10. Either they had no idea where the subway was or they were being ultra conservative in their estimate. The subway was — at most — 5 minutes away.

  We then joked that if a developer had made the sign it would say 2 minutes, which I thought was telling. Some people like to describe real estate development as an exercise in risk mitigation. And that is certainly something that needs to be managed. But it’s also an exercise in resiliency, as you get every possible obstacle thrown in front of you. It’s as if the goal is not to build anything.

  So while it’s important to manage the possible risks, I believe you have to be a bit of a glass-half-full kind of person in order to continue the march forward. Otherwise you’d probably give up. My first boss out of grad school used to describe it as reaching into the mouth of a tiger when everyone else figured it was over. I saw her do that time and time again and it made her great at what she did.

  2019.08.19

• Thoughts on driving and parking

  

  Adrian Cook’s recent blog post about parking got me thinking about a few driving-related issues. Adrian points out that most condo buildings only allow owners to rent out their parking spots to people who already live in the building. But oftentimes, that’s not the customer. The people in the market for a downtown spot are the ones who commute into the city. And so what we are seeing in many downtowns is an oversupply of parking. Municipalities need to adjust their requirements.

  What I have found is that most, but not all, cities are now fairly flexible when it comes to urban parking requirements. They recognize the hypocrisy in trying to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating a certain number of parking spots. And so the driver is more typically the market. Empty nesters and families who buy larger suites — at least here in Toronto — still almost always want parking. And it’s a deal breaker for them. Sometimes they want 2 spots.

  Of course, there are also many instances where the location and unit mix of a project can support building absolutely no parking. There are lots of examples of the market excepting this, and so my view on parking is that there needs to be flexibility. Parking is typically a loss leader. The incentives are in place to build a hell of a lot less of it. But developers build it because they have to.

  Lastly, I find that discussions around car dependency tend to ignore that we have designed vast swaths of our cities to be positively inhospitable to people who aren’t driving. Adrian is right in that if you look at the modal splits for people who live in downtown Vancouver and downtown Toronto, you will find a lot less drivers. And that’s because the environment is much better suited to other forms of mobility. The solution starts with urban form.

  Photo by Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum on Unsplash

  2019.08.11

• Personalizing outdoor spaces on multi-family buildings

  I am still making my way through (and editing) my photos from Lisbon and Malaga. Here is one that I took from the Playa de La Malagueta. I also posted it to Twitter and Instagram and asked: Should we encourage the personalization and customization of outdoor spaces on multi-family buildings?

  

  This building overlooks the beach and the Alboran Sea. If you look closely, you’ll see that a number of the balconies have been modified to include different kinds of awnings and shade structures. And some look to have been converted to interior space.

  A few of you seem to support this level of customization, provided that the overall design integrity of the building is maintained. And I would agree that in this particular instance, it seems to work, which is actually why I took the photo. It gives the facade life.

  I recall seeing instances of this in Toronto, but generally speaking it’s not encouraged or allowed. In condominiums, outdoor spaces attached to units are typically defined as “exclusive-use common elements.”

  The challenge, here, lies in the subjectivity of “maintaining the overall design intent of the building.” I’m not sure how you codify that, unless you pre-design the options. Perhaps that’s one way of doing it.

  2019.08.05

• Immaculate construction

  

  Emily Badger’s recent piece on “how ‘developer’ became such a dirty word” has been getting passed around within the industry over the last few days. I had a chuckle when I read this bit:

  The notion that development is inherently bad, or that developers are inherently bad actors, seems to ignore that the communities residents want to protect from developers were once developed, too, and often by people who made money at it. (That is, unless you believe in “immaculate construction.”)

  The article hits on a number of points that are absolutely true. There’s generally a lack of understanding around the economics behind new housing. And the cost structures, today, are dramatically different compared to the suburban-industrial complex.

  To provide one example, our cost consultant, Finnegan Marshall, recently shared with me a chart (dated April 2019) that broke down the various government fees that typically make up every new condo suite in Toronto.

  What it showed is that between 20-24% of the price of a new condo is generally compromised of government fees and taxes that span all three levels of government. This includes everything from development charges (impact fees) to parkland dedication.

  Similarly, the article quotes one developer from Montgomery County who estimates that the impact fees alone for his projects are usually upwards of $60,000 per housing unit. (This is pretty cheap compared to Toronto.)

  I raise this as an example because development charges/impact fees have become an important source of revenue for cities across both Canada and the US. They often offset lower property taxes. (Whether this is appropriate is an entirely other debate.)

  And so I find it paradoxical that many homeowners would like to simultaneously see lower property taxes, no new development, and more public services and infrastructure.

  Photo by EJ Yao on Unsplash

  2019.07.31

• Junction House Sales Gallery wins “Best of Canada Award” from Canadian Interiors

  

  Today I’m excited to announce that the Junction House Sales Gallery has just received a Best of Canada Award (2019) from Canadian Interiors. Link, here. Shout-out to Dialogue 38, Vanderbrand, Unique Urban Homes, Superkul, and the rest of the team for making it happen. We are fortunate to have had such a cool space to work with. It was previously occupied by the art studio, Moss & Lam. And so from the very beginning the idea was always to find the right balance between old and new, raw and unpolished, playful and luxurious.

  Some of you may also not be aware that before we converted the above studio into a condo showroom, we donated it to a number of creative groups who were looking for space, but maybe didn’t have a lot of (or any) money. Lost & Gone used it to host an immersive rendition of Romeo & Juliet (video of the performance, here). DJ and designer Steve Aoki used it to launch one of his Dim Mak collections (okay, he has a lot of money). And Secret Walls used it for a live art battle. In fact, Secret Wall’s markings are still present within the Gallery if you look up toward the ceiling.

  Before we came along, the space was used as an art studio. That’s an important part of the Junction House story and we wanted to commemorate that in the build out of the Sales Gallery (the “Gallery” part is meant to reference this past use). It is also one of the reasons why we partnered with Ben Johnston for this “Forever” mural on the outside of the building (yes, we see the irony); why we created a place for artists to showcase their work (currently Leeay Aikawa); and why we commissioned a celebrated local artist (Thrush Holmes) to create a custom piece for the future lobby of Junction House.

  Art matters.

  2019.07.30

• Toronto approves city-wide expansion of laneway suites

  This a big month for laneway (housing) advocates in Toronto. Last week, City Council voted in favor of expanding the policy provisions for laneway suites to all Neighbourhoods within the city. (Neighbourhood is a defined term in the city’s Official Plan.)

  Previously, the policies — which allow laneway suites to be built as-of-right — only applied to the Toronto & East York Districts. Here’s a copy of the recent staff report in case you would like more information.

  On Monday, my friend Alex Sharpe (of Lanescape) was on BNN Bloomberg talking about why this is a good thing for the city. Alex and the rest of the team at Lanescape have been instrumental in these policy changes.

  If you’re a Toronto homeowner with a property that fronts onto a laneway, I would encourage you to consider this opportunity. It’s a way to increase the value of your home and it’s a way to create more rental housing in this city.

  2019.07.23

• The Château Laurier battle in Ottawa

  1. A thread on the Chateau Laurier battle. In which this addition – modified and approved by Ottawa planners – is being described as “vandalism.” pic.twitter.com/GsitHnN8Xn

  — Alex Bozikovic (@alexbozikovic) July 11, 2019

  As I was going through this Twitter thread by Alex Bozikovic on the “Château Laurier battle,” I came across a great line by Robert Wright: “We cannot recreate the past only parody it.” I told him I was going to steal it, but here I am giving him credit.

  The controversy in Ottawa stems from the fact that a number of people believe that a modern addition to the Fairmont Château Laurier (which was constructed between 1909 and 1912) amounts to heresy.

  Instead, the addition should be designed to match the “Château style” that already exists. There should be no change. As Alex put it, “people want Disneyland.”

  We’ve had this very same debate come up on some of our projects, where people — but notably, not the city — have asked us to replicate something that was constructed in the 1800’s using labor and material techniques that no longer exist.

  This is where Robert’s line comes in.

  Architecture is a reflection of the cultural milieu in which it was designed and built, which is one of the reasons why we sometimes preserve old buildings. They communicate to us a particular moment in time.

  The reason architects, designers, and planners so often respond — negatively that is — to Disneyland-type architecture, is that it lacks that same authenticity. It’s only a simulacra.

  It’s for this reason that one of Ontario’s “eight guiding principles in the conservation of built heritage properties” is, in fact, legibility:

  “New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings or structures should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new.”

  This is not to say that we shouldn’t be respectful of the past. Five of the eight guiding principles include the word “respect” in the title. There should be lots of that.

  But we would be fooling, and cheating, ourselves if we believed we could mimic the past with any justice. We cannot recreate the past only parody it.

  2019.07.13

• Tiny, prefabricated, and expensive

  This is not a new video (click here if you can’t see it embedded above). It’s from 2015. But I still very much like the simplicity of the Vipp Shelter. It’s only 55 square meters.

  One problem is that it cost USD 585,000 at the time it was prefabricated. It goes to show you that prefabrication and small don’t necessarily equate to affordability. For this reason, Lloyd Alter called it a “problematic prefab” back in 2015.

  Of course, there are ways to make a home like this much more cost effective. I’ve been looking, on and off, for over a year for a piece of land that would be suitable for a project like this. I’ll let you all know if I find something.

  2019.07.10

• New York state law restricts condo conversions

  The State of New York just enacted a new law (on June 14, 2019) requiring that 51% of existing tenants agree to buy their apartments before a building can be converted into a condominium or a cooperative. There was previously no requirement for anyone to buy in order for a conversion to take place. Tenants who chose not to buy, could simply remain in the building as a renter.

  Supposedly, the real estate industry believes this new requirement will be a largely impossible threshold to meet, meaning that condo/co-op conversions could now be dead in NYC. There’s also an argument that conversions have historically helped many middle class New Yorkers buy a home since they sometimes (usually?) had the chance to buy their apartment below market at the time of a conversion.

  I’m not familiar enough with this space to be able to opine on the merits of these arguments, so I won’t. Perhaps some of you will in the comment section below. Instead, I will leave you all with a chart showing the median condo sale price in Manhattan over the last ~30 years (taken from the same WSJ article). I like seeing long(er) term charts. Maybe you do too.

  

  2019.07.09

• How Cubans transformed Miami into a global city

  

  I have a large, and growing, stack of books sitting beside my bed. It is a symptom of my interest in reading exceeding my actual capacity to read, given all the other things I’m doing. However, summer is a good time to get caught up and over the long weekend I did finish reading, The Global Edge: Miami in the Twenty-First Century. It was great, and so now I can confidently recommend it to all of you.

  The most interesting storyline for me was the leading role that “pre-Mariel” Cubans (more on this below) played in transforming Miami from a winter destination to an emerging global city. According to 2015 figures, the City of Miami’s population is 70% Hispanic, of which 34% are Cuban. About 70% of the city’s population speaks Spanish at home. And only about 11.9% of the population is white (non-Hispanic).

  But the bit that really intrigued me was the distinction that Alejandro Portes and Aerial C. Armony make between the “pre-Mariel” Cubans who arrived in the 1960s and 1970s — many of whom became successful entrepreneurs — and the “Marielitos” who arrived in the 1980s onward. This latter group has, on average, not seen the same kind of financial successes as its predecessors.

  The other thing that I think many of you will appreciate is that the authors recognize that all urban phenomena are inherently spatial. And so almost everything they discuss is described in terms of its physical manifestation within the city. Perhaps the most stark is the region’s growing inequality. Wealth along the water; poverty inland.

  Here’s some more information on the book if you’re interested.

  Photo by Alejandro Luengo on Unsplash

  2019.07.02