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: Planning

  • Are all red light districts bad and undesirable?

    Times Square in New York has, as we all know, a checkered past. For much of its history, it has served as an important civic gathering space for New Yorkers. But it has also alternated between being a place for New Year’s Eve countdowns and being a place for salacious entertainment. This was the case as far as back as the late 19th century when prostitution from New York’s entertainment and red light district (then known as the Tenderloin) started moving northward.

    But it was also the case during the economic fallout of the Great Depression and again the case from the 1960s to 1990s when the area become a symbol for a more broadly decaying New York City. The area was seedy, dangerous, and according to tax records, fairly vacant, notwithstanding all the sex shops. Most would probably agree that this was not a high point for the area. As a rule, cities are generally better off when their buildings aren’t vacant and decaying.

    But are all red light districts bad and undesirable?

    Last year, Amsterdam voted in favor of closing down its famed city center red light district and moving it to some kind of new “erotic center” on the outskirts of the city, in a location that is yet to be determined. Not surprisingly, this decision hasn’t been without some controversy. Local sex workers seem to be generally against the idea and petitions are now circulating, such as this one here from Failed Architecture, asking the building industry not to participate in the build out of this new center.

    In some ways Amsterdam has the opposite problem compared to what Times Square experienced between the 1960s and the early 1990s. Amsterdam is too popular. Back in 2019, prior to COVID, the city saw some 22 million unique annual visitors. And I am guessing that more than a few of these visitors probably got drunk, wandered through the narrow streets of De Wallen, and peed on the side of a few buildings. Is it unsafe? I don’t know. I’ve never been. Is it immoral? Depends on who you ask. Is it annoying for locals? Probably.

    The city has been clear in that it views this as over-tourism, and also the wrong kind of tourism. Rather than rely on sleaze, Amsterdam wants to “reset” its tourism approach and focus more on highbrow things like art and culture. This is an understandable objective. Because presumably the tourists who actively seek out art and culture attractions are, you know, a bit less reckless and a bit less likely to pee on the side of buildings. Of course, you never know.

    But is this really the right city planning approach? Is there any cultural value to these historic uses? And what does this say about the city’s famously liberal attitudes? More specifically, does wanting to move your red light district from the middle of the city to some less conspicuous location — in an effort to dissociate your city brand — a reflection that you’re becoming maybe a little less tolerant towards the activities that take place in said district? It certainly seems like it.

    But I don’t know, maybe that isn’t entirely the case. Maybe there’s a tenuous argument that the city is just as liberal and permissive. After all, the city is still generally okay with this kind of debauchery. It just wants this debauchery to take place in a different area outside of the overcrowded city center. In other words, the activities themselves aren’t the problem. It is arguably the negative externalities that come along with them that need to be managed. And a suburban “erotic center” is simply better for that.

    What are your thoughts? And what would you do if you were the mayor of Amsterdam?

    Photo by Joan Oger on Unsplash

  • Toronto proposes at 49% increase to development charges

    The big news this week for Toronto city builders is that the city has put forward a proposal to substantially increase development charges. Here’s a tweet storm that I published earlier today on the topic, and here’s a summary of what the new fees might look like:

    To translate this into a specific example, let’s assume that you’re building a 300 unit apartment building with 180 one bedroom suites and 120 two bedroom suites.

    Under these proposed DC rates, this would translate into charges of about $9.6mm for the one bedroom suites and $9.8mm for the two bedroom suites, totaling over $19.4mm in DCs alone. But keep in mind that there would be other charges on top of this for parkland dedication, community benefits, and a bunch of other things.

    When our cost consultant ran the numbers back in 2019, the estimate was that about a quarter of the price of a new condominium in Toronto was going to government fees and taxes. But with the above increase and with the introduction of policies like inclusionary zoning, I am sure that the number is higher today.

    These are easy fees to hide. Most people don’t know they exist. And a lot of people don’t seem to like new development and new housing. Property taxes on the other hand are highly visible and highly sensitive. So that tax tends to be left alone, especially by comparison.

    But these increases are hugely impactful. It means that developers across the city will now need to start looking at increasing rents and prices in order to try and offset it. If they can’t, they won’t build. And if they can, it will mean that the housing that does ultimately get built will be that much more expensive.

  • Forget infill development, why not just build entirely new cities?

    We talk a lot on this blog about how best to intensify and add housing to our existing cities. But here’s alternative approach: Why not just built entirely new cities? This way you don’t have to worry about fixing any of the things that are currently broken in our existing cities or worry about messy things like community engagement.

    Now, I disagree with many, or perhaps most, of the points that Nathan J. Robinson puts forward in the above Current Affairs article, but I think this is an interesting question to unpack. Robinson’s argument is that the main obstacle for building new cities in the US is ideological rather than technological. You need a bit more central government planning if you’re going to pull off a completely new urban center. And that’s not how things are generally done in the US.

    However, I think the real problem is that cities have powerful network effects that encourage centralization (even if some people are working from home). It’s easy to look at a large country like Canada and say to yourself, “but look at all that empty land. How could we possibly have a housing shortage?” The reality is that most of our land is empty and cheap because it has little value. The jobs are in our cities and that’s why Canada is a largely urban country.

    Indeed, this is how most cities have emerged historically. They start with some sort of economic purpose, be it an important trade route, access to resources, or some other driver of prosperity. It is for this reason that urbanists like Alain Bertaud will tell you that, typically, urban infrastructure follows the market, and not the other way around. Because who wants to live in a city with nice infrastructure but no jobs? More importantly, how long can a city without a strong economic purpose even last?

    Take for example Delhi. By 2030, Delhi is expected to be the largest city in the world. This has made it exceedingly difficult for the city to build enough new housing. So government there has been focusing on building new cities on the outskirts surrounding Delhi. These cities are referred to as “counter magnets”, and their purpose is to intercept and literally attract new migrants before they reach Delhi, thereby relieving some of the urban pressures on the capital.

    The fact that these cities are referred to as “counter magnets” speaks to exactly my point about centralization. It is recognition that Delhi is by far the biggest urban magnet. Because of this, these satellite cities haven’t been as successful as everyone had initially hoped. Migrants seem to still want Delhi. You can build new housing, but without jobs and economic opportunity, people will continue to flock to the biggest urban magnets.

    So sooner or later, you’ll need to fix what isn’t working.

    Photo by Ravi Sharma on Unsplash

  • The infamous 45-degree angular plane

    The Toronto mid-rise housing typology is known for architectural forms that often end up looking something like this:

    The reason for this is the infamous “45-degree angular plane” that gets applied when new developments abut low-rise residential neighborhoods. It is a way to transition down and mitigate some of the impacts associated with this kind of infill development — usually the concerns are overlook, privacy, and shadowing.

    These are, of course, legitimate concerns. But here’s the other side: Should we really be reducing the number of homes that we can build on our main streets by carving away area like this? Is overlook and shadowing more important than additional housing? Stepping buildings like this also makes constructing them more expensive and cumbersome. Are higher costs the goal?

    It is for reasons like these that some people have been paying attention to the new Danforth Avenue Planning Study that went to Toronto City Council this week. Among other things, the study recommended the relaxation of the 45-degree angular plane standard along a portion of the Danforth.

    This is certainly a step in the right direction. But in my humble opinion, it’s not nearly enough for an area that will ultimately sit at the intersection of two subway lines.

  • High-rise urban families in Toronto’s CityPlace

    The narrative in this fairly recent FastCompany article about Toronto’s CityPlace neighborhood is that the area was initially planned and built for young professionals who wanted to be close to work and party. But that it has since evolved to become a more mixed residential community. Over time, the young professionals started having children and now the area is filled with a surprising number of urban families. “Hundreds” according to FastCompany. In response to this shifting demographic, the Canoe Landing Campus was recently completed, containing a community center, two public schools, a public park, and childcare facilities. And apparently it was long overdue.

    This is interesting for a few reasons. CityPlace has long been criticized for its planning. Local Toronto lore has been that the area was destined to become a slum. But is that actually playing out? Anecdotally, it would seem that families are sticking around (and being attracted to the area) and that it’s settling in nicely as an urban residential community. In fact, I wonder if CityPlace might be emerging as one of the areas in the city with the highest concentration of high-rise urban families. I quickly tried to find some data on this but couldn’t.

    Something else worth pointing out: One of the objections that you’ll often here when it comes to new development is that there isn’t the infrastructure in place to support it. Where are the schools? Where are the community centers? And where are the hipster coffee shops? Because without these invaluable things, development should be stopped immediately. Now I’m not suggesting that these things aren’t important. But the CityPlace example is yet another reminder that cities and neighborhoods evolve — often in fortuitous ways. The best city building is nimble and entrepreneurial.

  • Sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable

    I just discovered a new alliance of non-partisan, non-profit resident and ratepayer groups in the Greater Toronto Area that have come together in opposition of what they see as “unregulated overdevelopment and the lack of sensible growth vision for the GTA.” If you’d like to read through their public letter to the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, you can do that over here.

    In it you will learn that the Toronto region is vying desperately for the title of the most densely populated place on earth by trying to compete with already established locales like the slums of Mumbai and Monk Kok in Hong Kong. One has to admire ambition.

    But what is not clear to me is what exactly “sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable developments” should look like. Should we quash our low-rise “Neighbourhood” designations (the majority of our land area) and instead blanket the region with mid-rise buildings similar to Paris? This is one option and, by the way, Paris is far denser than Toronto (relevant reading here and here).

    Or should we maintain our low-rise “Neighbourhoods” exactly as they are and simply reduce overall housing supply by limiting height and/or density at our transit stations? Is this the ask? I’m not sure. But this is a good question for city builders: What should sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable development look like? Is the 33-storey building that I live in sensible?

  • Density bonus as inclusionary zoning offset

    Somebody on Twitter responded to my recent post about inclusionary zoning and asked: Aren’t all the upzonings that the City is already doing a kind of density bonus? In other words, and this is me elaborating here, why is there an economic “shortfall?” Why does there need to be any other sort of subsidy in order to mitigate the economic impacts of inclusionary zoning?

    A density bonus can mean and can be used in a number of different contexts. Sometimes it is used as an incentive with landowners, whereby they get a bonus on top of their sale price if the developer manages to achieve a certain amount of density on the site. But in this particular case — IZ subsidies — we’re talking about something else.

    We’re talking about density above and beyond what you might normally achieve on a particular site in order to directly offset — maybe partially or maybe entirely — the economic shortfall brought about by inclusionary zoning. The fact that upzonings are happening all over the city doesn’t necessarily qualify them as bonuses. In the case of Toronto, the market is just responding to out-of-date zoning.

    Here’s a specific example.

    Let’s say you have a development site with in-place zoning that would allow you to build 20,000 sf of density. This is the as-of-right or by-right density. No need to rezone the site. Just file your building permits and you’re off making things. If this is the most you could build, then the market would value the land based on this density. As we have talked about before, land is the residual claimant in a development pro forma.

    However, if the zoning was out of date and it was fairly clear that one could rezone the site and build up to 100,000 sf, then the market would no longer value the site based on its in-place zoning. It would instead value it based on its future expected density. Again, because land is the residual claimant, more density = higher land value.

    In this second scenario, the additional 80,000 sf is, in my view, not a density bonus. Give or take a bit here and there, it is the density that everyone is generally expecting. The market has already priced it in. A true bonus / subsidy, would be something above and beyond the base of 100,000 sf. Something that is only available to developers if they do X — which could be build affordable housing.

    Maybe the bonus is perfectly tuned to exactly offset the economic drag of doing X, or maybe the bonus is designed to serve as an incentive to do X. In this latter case, the bonus would more than offset the drag and be accretive to the pro forma, which would mean that every sensible developer would now want to do X. More carrot, less stick.

    One of the challenges with this hypothetical scenario is that, for such a bonus structure to work, you need to know the baseline that you’re bonusing against and you need to ensure that nobody gets the bonus unless they do the thing — the X. Using the above example, that means that the 100,000 sf needs to be fairly firm and that anything above that number only happens with the delivery of affordable housing.

  • A new 15-minute city is being developed near Salt Lake City

    In 2018, the Utah State Legislature passed a bill creating a new land authority to guide the future development of 600 acres of state-owned land in Draper, Utah (just south of Salt Lake City). It’s near an area called The Point of the Mountain and so that’s what’s this project is now being called — The Point. Here’s a map to help you get situated:

    In addition to this being a big and meaningful development opportunity with an estimated 7,400 new households being contemplated, the land authority also wants this to become an innovation hub and a model “15-minute city.”

    There has been a lot of talk about 15-minute cities over the course of this pandemic, but the idea is simply to have all/most of your daily needs within walking distance of where you live and to not have to always rely on a car. This is a difficult thing to achieve in many cities, but I think it’s one the greatest urban amenities out there.

    A big part of this is creating the right street network and planning for enough density, which is why this can be so challenging to do after the fact. Street grids, in particular, tend to be extremely sticky and mostly immutable. In this case, the plan is to create car free zones (or limited vehicle zones) across the various centers of the development.

    Developing walkable communities from scratch is a lot harder than slotting into existing urban fabrics, particularly when you have a contrasting context all around it. You have to get a bunch of different things right for it to be successful. But we continue to see lot more of these urban-focused masterplanning efforts and I think the trend will only continue.

    If you’re a developer who would like to participate in The Point, the RFP door is currently open.

  • Toward more multi-family housing

    This recent article by Brookings is a good reminder of the all too important link between land use policies/patterns and GHG emissions. Because electric vehicles are cool and all, but they’re still not as efficient as just walking around and/or taking transit.

    As has been argued before on this blog, we need to not only electrify our transport network, but we also need to change how we get around. And probably the best way to encourage a modal shift, is to plan and build our cities differently. Something that is simple, but not easy.

    It also turns out that people who live in multi-family buildings tend to consume less energy (on a per capita basis) than those in single-family houses. So there are numerous benefits to encouraging denser housing on top of transit and within mixed-used communities.

    With all of this in mind, here are some interesting charts from the above Brookings article.

    This first one shows new housing permits in the metro areas of Atlanta, Chicago, and Washington DC, according to their urban, suburban, or exurban status. Here, Chicago is an outlier, with the “urban core” (defined as Cook County) now making up about half of all new housing.

    If you look at the entire study period, the number is less. The urban core accounted for about one-third of new housing permits in Chicago, and only 15% of permits in Atlanta and DC. But in all cases, housing permits in the urban core have been increasing since the 2008 financial crisis.

    But here’s the other thing. Looking at these next two charts, there appears to be a clear trendline toward more urban housing typologies. The first of these next two is showing single-family housing permits as a percentage of all new housing. And the second is structure type over time.

    Atlanta is still building mostly single-family housing, but less of it. And based on these charts, Chicago has already passed its inflection point. DC is not far off. Every city region is of course going to be different, but it does look like there is some kind of broader housing shift underway.

  • New York City releases climate resilience plan

    New York City is projecting that Lower Manhattan is likely to see more frequent flooding by as early as the 2040s. This could move to monthly flooding by the 2050s and daily by the 2080s. These time horizons may seem like a ways away, but I’m personally going to try my damnedest to see the 2080s.

    In light of these projections, New York City released a new Financial District and Seaport Climate Resilience Master Plan at the end of last year. The plan is projected to cost somewhere between $5 to $7 billion and entails building out a new multilevel waterfront that extends the current shoreline into the East River by up to 200 feet.

    Here are a couple of renderings:

    The upper level will be elevated by about 15-18 feet (designed to protect against storms like Sandy) and the lowest level will be a continuous waterfront esplanade (designed to connect humans to the water). Overall, the plan encompasses about one mile of waterfront, running from The Battery to the Brooklyn Bridge.

    City building take times. In the case of this plan, it is building for the next century.

    For a copy of the full press release, click here.

    Images: NYC Economic Development Corporation