The typical way to do it looks something like this:

• Hire a creative agency

• Come up with a new name and brand identity that speaks to your target market

• Create a new website and new social media accounts

• Start marketing the project with this new single-purpose brand and identity in the forefront (the developer's brand is usually far less prominent)

Of course, this is the typical way and things do vary. What I would like to discuss today is this last point: the interrelationship between new project-specific brands and developer brands. Because in most other industries, the brand of the company is paramount. It is everything. When BMW releases a new car model, it is BMW and then the something. It is not the something, with BMW hidden at the bottom of the page.

So why is real estate any different?

One possible explanation is the entrepreneurial and opportunistic nature of development. New projects are often the result of people and groups coming together to make a specific "deal" happen. And unless you're an established player with a long history, you may not have a consumer-facing brand with much equity in it. So you rely on a new single-purpose one instead.

But perhaps the main reason is that, as an industry, we have never really succeeded at making buildings a product (architects sometimes despise when you call buildings this). It is for this reason that every building can feel like a prototype and that prefabrication remains this dream that never seems to become a reality. A product implies something repeatable and producible at scale. And buildings are generally not that. Every market and site are unique.

All of this said, there are ways that developers are building meaningful brands for themselves.

The first way is to obviously focus on building your own brand alongside or in lieu of strong project brands. One example of this is Toronto-based Urban Capital. They build a specific kind of condominium building/product and, to the extent that it's possible, it doesn't change whether they're building in Saskatoon or in Halifax. David Wex, one of the partners, describes this as branded vs. opportunistic real estate development.

Another example is Toronto-based Fitzrovia (which I wrote about, here). They are one of if not the most active rental developers in the city. And if you go into one of their apartment buildings, you'll find the same No. 10 Dean coffee shop and bar in the lobby; the same rooftop pool (called LIDO); the same gym (called The Temple); and the list goes on. Their goal is to build a consistent and hospitality-like experience for apartments.

The second way to go about building a brand is to make it so attractive that other developers will pay you to use it. The best example that I can think of is London-based YOO. A partnership between John Hitchcox (a developer) and famed designer Philippe Starck, they have built a business out of creating branded residences for third-party developer clients. And this is in some ways the holy grail of development: you get paid without taking on the risk of building.

Of course, this same licensing model is also used with hotels. And hotel brands are globally the most common kind of branded residence. What this obviously tells us is that brands matter a great deal in real estate. They matter so much that developers will pay to use the right one, because it will likely command a premium and it will likely increase sales/leasing velocity.

It is for this reason that I've always felt it important to grow the parent brand alongside any project-level brands. And it's why we never bother creating new social accounts for our individual development projects. Brand building takes time. If you're going to invest time and money into one, why not take advantage of the compounding at the very top of the house.

Between 2016 and 2021, and according to this recent report from Statistics Canada, the population of the Toronto CMA (Census Metropolitan Area) grew by over 274k people:

The population of the Montréal CMA grew by nearly 188k people:

And the population of the Vancouver CMA grew by over 179k people:

These are the three largest CMAs in the country and they, not surprisingly, also have the three largest "downtowns." As of the spring of 2021, the most populated downtowns were as follows: Toronto (275,931 people), Vancouver (121,932 people), Montréal (109,509), Ottawa (67,169 people), and Edmonton (55,387).

In this exercise, Statistics Canada breaks down each CMA into 5 categories, which are generally based on two things: (1) your typical monocentric city model (downtown in the middle with a declining gradient of surrounding sprawl) and (2) how long it takes to commute -- by car during non-rush hours -- from downtown to the surrounding areas.

The good news in all of this is that Canada's downtowns seem to be doing just fine. Broadly speaking, they are growing at a faster rate than their respective CMAs and growing at 2x the rate of the previous census cycle. Halifax's downtown grew at 26.1% from 2016 to 2021 and Calgary grew at 21%, to give two more examples. So I think you can safely ignore what you may have heard about a pandemic exodus. Those people are now returning from the country after realizing that there aren't any pretentious coffee shops and expensive butcher shops.

But something else is also going on in Canada's largest urban centers. The concurrent trend is continued urban sprawl. The biggest downtowns are growing quickly, but so are the distant suburbs (30 minutes or more from downtown). And they are growing at a faster rate than everything in between. This is not entirely surprising, but it is obviously concerning from a climate change perspective and because it suggests that people are being forced to do the old "drive until you qualify" thing.

These two phenomena are the most pronounced in the Toronto CMA. If you scroll back up to the top of this post, you'll see that downtown absorbed a decent chunk of the population growth (about 14%), particularly considering its small footprint. But then if you look at the distant suburbs (the mustard color), you'll see that it's where 72% of new entrants went!

The question I like to ask with all of this is, "are people choosing to move to the distant suburbs because that's the housing and location that they truly want, or are people choosing it because it's all they can afford?" There is an argument out there that sprawl is a natural market outcome and that we shouldn't be forcing people to live in higher-density housing. And I am certainly sympathetic to giving people as much choice as possible.

But how much choice are we really giving people in our biggest cities? We have figured out how to intensify our downtowns through mid- and high-rise development. And evidenced by the growth rates, many people are enjoying this form of housing and the kind of urban lifestyle that comes along with it. But if it happens to not work for you, our current solution is, "either be rich so you can remain close to downtown or go for a drive."

What is clear from this latest census data is that we haven't yet figured out the in-between. The missing middle is still missing. And that's because we have clear mechanisms in place to more or less ensure this is the case: (1) We restrict meaningful growth from taking place in our single-family neighbourhoods and (2) we have made a habit out of shifting some of the incumbent tax burden to new entrants through things like development charges.

Overall, it's a devilishly clever system where two things happen: "Sorry, you can't build that kind of housing here. Build it somewhere else. By the way, I'd like to keep my property taxes as low as possible, so not only do I not what you close to me, but I'd also like you to help pay for some things. Cool?" This is the arrangement that we are seeing playing out in these charts. It can be easy to ignore, but it's there.

Charts: Statistics Canada

https://dmeb.castos.com/episodes/interview-with-david-wex

My friend David Wex of Urban Capital Property Group -- who I featured in my "BARED" blog series back in 2016 -- was recently interviewed by architect Vincent Van den Brink (of Breakhouse) for the firm's podcast called, Design Makes Everything Better. It's a great listen and I particularly like the bit around branded vs. opportunistic real estate development. In the case of Urban Capital, David would describe his firm as being a branded developer. They build a specific product and it doesn't really change when they build across Toronto and in other markets. Expect exposed concrete ceilings and exposed ducts, among other things. If you can't see the embedded podcast above, you can have a listen over here.

The typical way to do it looks something like this:

• Hire a creative agency

• Come up with a new name and brand identity that speaks to your target market

• Create a new website and new social media accounts

• Start marketing the project with this new single-purpose brand and identity in the forefront (the developer's brand is usually far less prominent)

Of course, this is the typical way and things do vary. What I would like to discuss today is this last point: the interrelationship between new project-specific brands and developer brands. Because in most other industries, the brand of the company is paramount. It is everything. When BMW releases a new car model, it is BMW and then the something. It is not the something, with BMW hidden at the bottom of the page.

So why is real estate any different?

One possible explanation is the entrepreneurial and opportunistic nature of development. New projects are often the result of people and groups coming together to make a specific "deal" happen. And unless you're an established player with a long history, you may not have a consumer-facing brand with much equity in it. So you rely on a new single-purpose one instead.

But perhaps the main reason is that, as an industry, we have never really succeeded at making buildings a product (architects sometimes despise when you call buildings this). It is for this reason that every building can feel like a prototype and that prefabrication remains this dream that never seems to become a reality. A product implies something repeatable and producible at scale. And buildings are generally not that. Every market and site are unique.

All of this said, there are ways that developers are building meaningful brands for themselves.

The first way is to obviously focus on building your own brand alongside or in lieu of strong project brands. One example of this is Toronto-based Urban Capital. They build a specific kind of condominium building/product and, to the extent that it's possible, it doesn't change whether they're building in Saskatoon or in Halifax. David Wex, one of the partners, describes this as branded vs. opportunistic real estate development.

Another example is Toronto-based Fitzrovia (which I wrote about, here). They are one of if not the most active rental developers in the city. And if you go into one of their apartment buildings, you'll find the same No. 10 Dean coffee shop and bar in the lobby; the same rooftop pool (called LIDO); the same gym (called The Temple); and the list goes on. Their goal is to build a consistent and hospitality-like experience for apartments.

The second way to go about building a brand is to make it so attractive that other developers will pay you to use it. The best example that I can think of is London-based YOO. A partnership between John Hitchcox (a developer) and famed designer Philippe Starck, they have built a business out of creating branded residences for third-party developer clients. And this is in some ways the holy grail of development: you get paid without taking on the risk of building.

Of course, this same licensing model is also used with hotels. And hotel brands are globally the most common kind of branded residence. What this obviously tells us is that brands matter a great deal in real estate. They matter so much that developers will pay to use the right one, because it will likely command a premium and it will likely increase sales/leasing velocity.

It is for this reason that I've always felt it important to grow the parent brand alongside any project-level brands. And it's why we never bother creating new social accounts for our individual development projects. Brand building takes time. If you're going to invest time and money into one, why not take advantage of the compounding at the very top of the house.

Between 2016 and 2021, and according to this recent report from Statistics Canada, the population of the Toronto CMA (Census Metropolitan Area) grew by over 274k people:

The population of the Montréal CMA grew by nearly 188k people:

And the population of the Vancouver CMA grew by over 179k people:

These are the three largest CMAs in the country and they, not surprisingly, also have the three largest "downtowns." As of the spring of 2021, the most populated downtowns were as follows: Toronto (275,931 people), Vancouver (121,932 people), Montréal (109,509), Ottawa (67,169 people), and Edmonton (55,387).

In this exercise, Statistics Canada breaks down each CMA into 5 categories, which are generally based on two things: (1) your typical monocentric city model (downtown in the middle with a declining gradient of surrounding sprawl) and (2) how long it takes to commute -- by car during non-rush hours -- from downtown to the surrounding areas.

The good news in all of this is that Canada's downtowns seem to be doing just fine. Broadly speaking, they are growing at a faster rate than their respective CMAs and growing at 2x the rate of the previous census cycle. Halifax's downtown grew at 26.1% from 2016 to 2021 and Calgary grew at 21%, to give two more examples. So I think you can safely ignore what you may have heard about a pandemic exodus. Those people are now returning from the country after realizing that there aren't any pretentious coffee shops and expensive butcher shops.

But something else is also going on in Canada's largest urban centers. The concurrent trend is continued urban sprawl. The biggest downtowns are growing quickly, but so are the distant suburbs (30 minutes or more from downtown). And they are growing at a faster rate than everything in between. This is not entirely surprising, but it is obviously concerning from a climate change perspective and because it suggests that people are being forced to do the old "drive until you qualify" thing.

These two phenomena are the most pronounced in the Toronto CMA. If you scroll back up to the top of this post, you'll see that downtown absorbed a decent chunk of the population growth (about 14%), particularly considering its small footprint. But then if you look at the distant suburbs (the mustard color), you'll see that it's where 72% of new entrants went!

The question I like to ask with all of this is, "are people choosing to move to the distant suburbs because that's the housing and location that they truly want, or are people choosing it because it's all they can afford?" There is an argument out there that sprawl is a natural market outcome and that we shouldn't be forcing people to live in higher-density housing. And I am certainly sympathetic to giving people as much choice as possible.

But how much choice are we really giving people in our biggest cities? We have figured out how to intensify our downtowns through mid- and high-rise development. And evidenced by the growth rates, many people are enjoying this form of housing and the kind of urban lifestyle that comes along with it. But if it happens to not work for you, our current solution is, "either be rich so you can remain close to downtown or go for a drive."

What is clear from this latest census data is that we haven't yet figured out the in-between. The missing middle is still missing. And that's because we have clear mechanisms in place to more or less ensure this is the case: (1) We restrict meaningful growth from taking place in our single-family neighbourhoods and (2) we have made a habit out of shifting some of the incumbent tax burden to new entrants through things like development charges.

Overall, it's a devilishly clever system where two things happen: "Sorry, you can't build that kind of housing here. Build it somewhere else. By the way, I'd like to keep my property taxes as low as possible, so not only do I not what you close to me, but I'd also like you to help pay for some things. Cool?" This is the arrangement that we are seeing playing out in these charts. It can be easy to ignore, but it's there.

Charts: Statistics Canada

https://dmeb.castos.com/episodes/interview-with-david-wex

My friend David Wex of Urban Capital Property Group -- who I featured in my "BARED" blog series back in 2016 -- was recently interviewed by architect Vincent Van den Brink (of Breakhouse) for the firm's podcast called, Design Makes Everything Better. It's a great listen and I particularly like the bit around branded vs. opportunistic real estate development. In the case of Urban Capital, David would describe his firm as being a branded developer. They build a specific product and it doesn't really change when they build across Toronto and in other markets. Expect exposed concrete ceilings and exposed ducts, among other things. If you can't see the embedded podcast above, you can have a listen over here.