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

  • 25 years of transit-oriented development

    When we build next to transit, we often call this transit-oriented development. 

    What’s interesting about this moniker is that it implies we’re doing something a little special — something out of the ordinary. And I guess that makes sense because, in many cities, it is often out of the ordinary. 

    That’s why you don’t hear people at real estate conferences saying, “check out this new cutting edge car-oriented development that our firm is developing.” That doesn’t need to be specified.

    But at the end of the day, I’m not sure how special transit-oriented development really is; it’s basically just urban development. Meaning, you put density on top of and next to transit stations and then more people take transit. That’s how this works.

    On that note, here is an interesting study from the School of Cities that looked at Toronto’s transit network and how the populations around each station have changed (or not changed) between 1996 and 2021 (census data). 

    If you look at the various transit lines, you’ll see that, in some cases, like downtown, we have added a lot of new transit-oriented development. This is good. Populations increased. 

    But in many/most other cases, populations remained flat; or worse, they declined. This is a serious problem, and it shows how land use restrictions are forcing us to underutilize our existing transit assets.

    Maybe what we need to do is stop thinking about transit-oriented development as something special, and instead remind ourselves that this is standard operating procedure. It’s just what you do next to transit.

    Thanks to Sam Kulendran for sharing the above study with me.

  • Project Profile: Iconik Apartments, Prague

    Today, let’s take a look at the Iconik Apartments in Prague.

    Completed in 2023 and designed by edit!, this mid-rise project is split into two distinct volumes — a 9-story one and an 8-story one. This was done to respond to both the surrounding context and the way that the parcels were divided on the site prior to redevelopment. In total, the building is 5,433 m2 and has 48 apartments.

    There are 3 levels of below-grade parking, which are accessed via a single parking elevator (pictured above). Based on the one example parking plan provided (which has 13 spaces), I’m guessing the project has somewhere around ~39 total parking spaces (13 x 3). This is a higher parking ratio (39/48 = 0.81) than I would have expected for what looks to be a central and urban location.

    The color of the traffic coating in the garage is nice, though.

    The lobby is simple. It contains one elevator and one staircase running up the building. I like how prominent and accessible they made the latter. It encourages you to take the stairs if you live on one of the lower floors.

    Above is what one of these lower floors might look like. There are two dual-aspect apartments on either end of the plate, meaning they have windows facing both the street and the rear courtyard. There are also a handful of studio apartments facing this same courtyard.

    Finally, above is what the outdoor spaces look like for the penthouses at the top. The clear heights appear a little low, but presumably they were working to an overall building height.

    I like studying this scale of project because it is a housing type that we should be building more of in our cities. So it is helpful to see how others are doing it. In the case, there are a number of obvious takeaways: no onerous loading/servicing requirements on the ground floor, a single parking elevator in lieu of a space-consumptive ramp (though less parking would would be even more ideal), and a single means of egress throughout the building.

    If you’re looking to build at this scale, these are good places to start.

    Drawings/Photos: edit! and BoysPlayNice

  • The Walk-Up

    Today on the blog, I thought we’d feature a new fourplex being developed here in Toronto at 2343 Gerrard Street East called The Walk-Up. Designed by Studio JCI and presented by Paul Johnston of Unique Urban Homes, this is the first in a series of “missing middle” projects now being developed by Urbinco.

    Housed on your typical single-family lot, The Walk-Up is somewhere between 3-4 stories and has four homes: a garden suite, a ground suite, a center suite, and a sky suite. And each is family-oriented both in terms of design and size. They all have over 1,000 square feet of interior space, have two bedrooms, and have access to outdoor space.

    In other words, it is exactly the kind of housing solution that Toronto needs a lot more of! Thankfully, this form of housing has been permitted (as-of-right) in Toronto since May 2023. Unfortunately, there are still many municipalities and politicians who don’t seem to get it. But that’s okay. This is usually how things go. Toronto leads, and then others follow.

    For more information on The Walk-Up, click here.

  • Windowless bedrooms are the result of specific forces

    Pat Hanson of gh3* is absolutely right with her comment, here, about why we are seeing more windowless bedrooms being built in Toronto:

    In much the same way, some of Toronto’s development policies encourage windowless bedrooms. “I don’t think it’s driven by cost,” says architect Pat Hanson, a founding principal of gh3* and a member of Waterfront Toronto’s Design Review Panel. “It’s driven a lot by building forms. Where you find a lot of these inboard bedrooms is in the mid-rise type.” The requirements to step back mid-rises on an angular plane, she adds, forces the developers to populate their projects with very deep units.

    This condition is being driven by building forms and by overall housing affordability. Here is a post that I wrote on this exact topic back in 2017. The numbers are dated. I cited $857 per square foot as the average price of a downtown Toronto condo. But the forces at work remain the same.

    And they are not entirely unique to apartments and condominiums. One of the reasons why many condominiums are becoming long and skinny — and getting designed with windowless bedrooms — is the same reason that many cities, like Toronto, have long and skinny single-family lots.

    You can certainly find wider lots, but it’ll cost you.

  • Modest and beautiful

    It is hard to argue that this isn’t a beautiful building:

    Designed by Morris Adjmi Architects and located at the corner of Grand and Mulberry in New York City, it is exactly the kind of building that many of us would like to see more of in our cities. It has retail at grade and it’s, you know, modest in scale at only 7 stories, 20 units, and 35,765 square feet.

    Looking inside, here are some of the floor plans:

    Overall, I would say that these layouts are more generous than what you would typically find in new builds here in Toronto. For new condominiums, 686 sf would be considered large for a one bedroom. Many/most sales teams/departments would tell you to turn this into a two bedroom.

    But this doesn’t mean that developers in NYC are simply being more generous with their square feet. It all costs money. And according to StreetEasy, the average sale price in this building is US$1,979,210 and the average price per square foot is US$2,384 (19 most recent sales).

    This is another reminder that modest and beautiful can often equal expensive. It’s how you make the math work, or at least hope to.

  • We are close to home

    I don’t use Facebook anymore, but I was recently sent this. It is a post by a reporter for The West End Phoenix asking people from the community what they think of the JUNCTION sign on top of Junction House. As of right now, there are 217 comments and, if you scroll through them, you’ll see that they are actually overwhelmingly positive.

    Some people were critical of the fact that, depending on what you consider to be the boundaries of the Junction, this sign may or may not actually be in it. Some see Junction House as belonging to the West Bend neighborhood. So here is yet another real estate developer stretching boundaries and renaming neighborhoods.

    I don’t know, neighborhood boundaries are a funny thing. They’re often amorphous and they often change. Here’s what Google believes to be the boundaries of the Junction:

    As you can see from the map, the whole point of the sign was to mark one of the entrances to the neighborhood. Although, Junction House seems to sit on contested lands; Google Maps shows it as simultaneously belonging to the West Bend. Whatever the case, it is really great to see that the vast majority of people seem to love the sign.

    My favorite comment is this one here: “Love it. My kid recognizes it and always yells that we are close to home.” I mean, this was our hope. We wanted to create something that could become a symbol for the area, help to reinforce its existing identity, and also bring people delight. The fact that kids are loving it makes it that much better.

    Perhaps this is proof that we shouldn’t be so rigid when it comes to the design of our cities. A little color, and some LEDs that look like neon, can be a positive thing. Just ask the kids.

  • Front yard setback

    Following yesterday’s post on small-scale apartments, a number of people commented on the 6m front yard setback that was shown on the city’s drawings and that I mentioned in my post. Well, it turns out that I wasn’t entirely correct about the 6m. What is proposed in the draft zoning by-law is the following:

    The modelling has illustrated building setbacks that are appropriate for townhouse developments and small-scale apartment buildings on major streets in a Neighbourhoods context. Based on the review, Urban Design staff recommend that the front yard setback be implemented through use of the average of the existing neighbouring setbacks, or a minimum of 3 meters, whichever is greater. This approach maintains consistency with the existing character of the Neighbourhoods supports protection of existing mature trees.

    As you might expect, the approach with these small-scale apartments is to be mindful of the existing low-rise context. But as many of you rightly pointed out when you saw the 6m, the existing context may not be appropriate or ideal for the planned context, especially if there’s retail at grade.

    This is just one of the many details that we’ll need to be careful with as this initiative moves forward.

  • Toronto wants small-scale apartments on its major streets

    This week we speak about the problem of not enough density next to transit stations. More specifically, we spoke about Toronto’s low-rise residential neighborhoods, which are colored yellow in the city’s Official Plan. Well, as many of you know, the city is, in fact, working to “expand housing options” in these neighhorhoods through their EHON program. One component of the program covers laneway and garden suites, another covers multiplexes (up to fourplexes), and another hopes to allow 6-story apartment buildings on all major streets.

    Here are the city’s major streets:

    And here’s what these “small-scale apartments” might look like:

    The setbacks are intended to be 6m in the front (to be consistent with existing neighborhood setbacks); 1.8m on the sides (so there’s rear access and so that these elevations only get fenestration for secondary rooms); and 7.5m in the back (which is consistent with the current mid-rise guidelines). Now, directionally, and without referring to any of the specific details, this is good. Toronto’s major streets are, in most cases, painfully underdeveloped; the existing built form feels generally entirely out of place. But the important question remains: Will developers actually build these at scale?

    Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue, for example, already allow mid-rise buildings that, for the most part, are bigger than what is being proposed here as part of the EHON program. But again, they remain underdeveloped. And there’s a subway running underneath these streets! So why will it be any different on our other major streets? One key difference is that these small-scale apartments are expected to be fully as-of-right. Meaning, no rezoning process and no community meetings. This will save a lot of time and money.

    Still, this is almost certainly going to require some iterative finessing to get it right. I think you’ll see developers looking to do little to no parking, no basements, no dedicated loading areas (certainly no type “G” spaces), slab-on-grade construction, and standardized and repeatable designs. And even then, this may not be enough. Rental replacement policies are yet another major barrier to consider. It’s going to have to be all about speed and efficiency, which is why it will likely also create a greater push to rethink some building code items, such as the requirement for two means of egress.

    At the end of the day, I want something like this to happen. It would increase housing supply, and make Toronto far more vibrant and far more conducive to non-driving forms of mobility. It’s, no doubt, a really positive thing. But for this to become a reality, it needs to work at scale. Meaning, the development pro formas need to work at scale, and with sufficient margin that developers won’t just automatically look to other opportunities. If the development community can make money building this housing typology, they will look for every opportunity to build it. But if they can’t make money, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.

    Images: City of Toronto

  • 1151 Queen East

    This morning I toured 1151 Queen East (here in Toronto). It is a new 47-suite apartment building that is being developed by Hullmark and that was designed by Superkül (the same architects as Junction House). It’s not quite finished yet, but it is looking terrific. The interiors feel, to me, like Berlin meets classic Miami Beach (if you can picture whatever this means). So a big congrats to the entire team. I’m sure it will be well-loved once people start moving in this year.

    At the same time, it’s hard not to see small and beautiful infill projects like this and wonder, “why do we make it so difficult to build this kind of new housing? This is a 6-storey rental building that, according to Urban Toronto, was first proposed in 2018. It then had to go through the typical rezoning process, which, in this case, seems to have taken two years. Now we’re in 2024. Uh, why?

    We should be looking at this kind of infill housing and saying, “Yes! You should go ahead and build this right now. Let us help you with that.” Instead, we erect barriers, which only force developers toward ever larger projects. If you’re going to spend two years in rezoning, no matter the scale of the development, why not build 470 homes instead of 47? And this has only been exacerbated with higher interest rates, because now time costs you that much more.

    I say all of this because this is an objectively great infill project. Our city would be a better place with a lot more of these.

  • Boston’s office to residential conversion program

    Like many cities these days, Boston has a program in place to incentivize the conversion of office buildings to residential. Here is generally how it works:

    • City to provide an average tax abatement of up to 75% of the fair market assessed residential value for up to 29 years.
    • City to fast track the development review process (only 1 community meeting). Zoning would be considered as-of-right.
    • Construction must start before October 2025.
    • Per the city’s inclusionary zoning policies, 17% of all newly created residential suites must be restricted to households making up to 60% of AMI (Area Median Income), and another 3% of the suites must be reserved for voucher holders.
    • Projects cannot be ground-up construction. Adaptive re-use only. Though additional height/FAR is a possibility.
    • Program is not intended to create micro-units (I’m not sure how firm this restriction is).
    • Any ground-floor retail and public uses must be maintained.
    • Transaction charge of 2% on any future gross sale of the property.

    And here is one example project that is using the program. It is interesting to look at how different cities are approaching this vacancy problem.