Subscribe
I attended the above talk last night over Zoom. (Shoutout to Michael Mortensen for inviting Slate's development team and for helping to moderate the Q&A.) The talk was a conversation between Larry Beasley (former Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver) and Theresa O'Donnell (the newly appointed Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver). Prior to this, Theresa was the director of planning for cities such as Las Vegas, Nevada, and Arlington, Texas.
I'd like to point out two comments that she made last night that I found interesting.
The first is that community meetings over Zoom actually aren't all that bad. And the reason that they're not all that bad is that they tend to draw out larger crowds (they are easier to attend), and so the feedback on development applications tends to be a bit more inclusive / representative. I agree with this overall view and I've been arguing for years (here on the blog) that the typical approach to community engagement is pretty much broken. The opinions become lopsided when you erect too many barriers to participation.
The second point has to do with the amount of land in Vancouver (and other North American cities) that is dedicated to low-rise housing. It's too much and it's going to need to be addressed in order to increase overall housing supply and to chip away at the housing affordability problem. This won't be news to this audience, but it's interesting to see how widespread this belief has become. Of course, the big questions remain: How gentle should gentle density be? How much intensification should these neighborhoods see?
I also appreciated her comment that it's pure lunacy (my words, not hers) to have higher order transit lines running through mostly low-rise neighborhoods. We need much higher densities to sustainably support these kinds of investments in infrastructure. For us Torontonians, a good example would be (most of) the underdeveloped Bloor-Danforth subway line, though there are other culprits.
Welcome Theresa.
In 2010, Gal and Tania Adir, aged 23 and 24, respectively, began renovating high-value apartments in central London.
Today, they are known as The Adir Group and have about £50m in development under way.
But more than just a developer, the group has grown to become “the parent company of a quickly expanding collection of complementary brands bound together by a desire to enhance people’s lifestyle through quality and beauty.”
In addition to G&T (their residential development arm), they also founded Net.Works (a co-working space) and Nuper (a co-op living scheme). This last focus isn’t up on their website yet, but I read about it on Michael Mortensen’s blog. The goal of Nuper is to create affordable living solutions for young talent in London.
I wanted to profile The Adir Group because I think it’s incredible how young they were when they got started (I was just starting graduate school at 23) and because I like their approach of creating a collection of complementary companies.
I am excited to see where the next generation of developers (myself included) take this business. Already we are seeing some new approaches emerge.
I recently started reading the blog of Michael Mortensen. Michael is a real estate developer and urban planner based in the UK. And if you like my blog, I think you’ll also like his.
Last week he published a post talking about a UK development company called Pocket and a recent design competition that they organized called “Pocket two bedroom.”
Historically the firm has been focused on well-designed and compact one bedroom apartments (38 square meters) that they deliver at a minimum 20% discount relative to typical market rate housing in London.
But over time, they found that they had to turn people away because they were looking for larger – yet still affordable – two bedroom apartments. So the firm decided to figure out how to scale their model to larger units.
To do this, they went out and asked 19 architects to come up with ideas for a two bedroom Pocket apartment. They then published all of the ideas online.
Firstly, I applaud them for making their competition results public. Most real estate companies wouldn’t do this.
Secondly, it’s interesting to take note of the recurring design themes, as they have on page 24-25 of their competition book.
Some of the themes include “deep thresholds” that blur private and communal spaces; “thick walls” that allow for storage and servicing; flexible spaces and fewer dedicated spaces; and dual entry apartments.
This last item was particularly interesting to me. It’s a simple idea – two separate doors leading into one apartment – but it can allow for a number of flexible sharing scenarios. I am already imagining somebody creating an Airbnb rental out of their second bedroom.
Housing is certainly undergoing a transformation.
I attended the above talk last night over Zoom. (Shoutout to Michael Mortensen for inviting Slate's development team and for helping to moderate the Q&A.) The talk was a conversation between Larry Beasley (former Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver) and Theresa O'Donnell (the newly appointed Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver). Prior to this, Theresa was the director of planning for cities such as Las Vegas, Nevada, and Arlington, Texas.
I'd like to point out two comments that she made last night that I found interesting.
The first is that community meetings over Zoom actually aren't all that bad. And the reason that they're not all that bad is that they tend to draw out larger crowds (they are easier to attend), and so the feedback on development applications tends to be a bit more inclusive / representative. I agree with this overall view and I've been arguing for years (here on the blog) that the typical approach to community engagement is pretty much broken. The opinions become lopsided when you erect too many barriers to participation.
The second point has to do with the amount of land in Vancouver (and other North American cities) that is dedicated to low-rise housing. It's too much and it's going to need to be addressed in order to increase overall housing supply and to chip away at the housing affordability problem. This won't be news to this audience, but it's interesting to see how widespread this belief has become. Of course, the big questions remain: How gentle should gentle density be? How much intensification should these neighborhoods see?
I also appreciated her comment that it's pure lunacy (my words, not hers) to have higher order transit lines running through mostly low-rise neighborhoods. We need much higher densities to sustainably support these kinds of investments in infrastructure. For us Torontonians, a good example would be (most of) the underdeveloped Bloor-Danforth subway line, though there are other culprits.
Welcome Theresa.
In 2010, Gal and Tania Adir, aged 23 and 24, respectively, began renovating high-value apartments in central London.
Today, they are known as The Adir Group and have about £50m in development under way.
But more than just a developer, the group has grown to become “the parent company of a quickly expanding collection of complementary brands bound together by a desire to enhance people’s lifestyle through quality and beauty.”
In addition to G&T (their residential development arm), they also founded Net.Works (a co-working space) and Nuper (a co-op living scheme). This last focus isn’t up on their website yet, but I read about it on Michael Mortensen’s blog. The goal of Nuper is to create affordable living solutions for young talent in London.
I wanted to profile The Adir Group because I think it’s incredible how young they were when they got started (I was just starting graduate school at 23) and because I like their approach of creating a collection of complementary companies.
I am excited to see where the next generation of developers (myself included) take this business. Already we are seeing some new approaches emerge.
I recently started reading the blog of Michael Mortensen. Michael is a real estate developer and urban planner based in the UK. And if you like my blog, I think you’ll also like his.
Last week he published a post talking about a UK development company called Pocket and a recent design competition that they organized called “Pocket two bedroom.”
Historically the firm has been focused on well-designed and compact one bedroom apartments (38 square meters) that they deliver at a minimum 20% discount relative to typical market rate housing in London.
But over time, they found that they had to turn people away because they were looking for larger – yet still affordable – two bedroom apartments. So the firm decided to figure out how to scale their model to larger units.
To do this, they went out and asked 19 architects to come up with ideas for a two bedroom Pocket apartment. They then published all of the ideas online.
Firstly, I applaud them for making their competition results public. Most real estate companies wouldn’t do this.
Secondly, it’s interesting to take note of the recurring design themes, as they have on page 24-25 of their competition book.
Some of the themes include “deep thresholds” that blur private and communal spaces; “thick walls” that allow for storage and servicing; flexible spaces and fewer dedicated spaces; and dual entry apartments.
This last item was particularly interesting to me. It’s a simple idea – two separate doors leading into one apartment – but it can allow for a number of flexible sharing scenarios. I am already imagining somebody creating an Airbnb rental out of their second bedroom.
Housing is certainly undergoing a transformation.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog