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.

Category: Uncategorized

  • 13th annual+

    It’s that time of year again: the annual ski and snowboard trip.

    Regular readers of this blog will know that this happens each and every year, provided a global pandemic isn’t currently underway. Last year we went to Park City and this year we’re off to Lyon and Les 3 Vallées. Is there anything better than urban + mountain? I don’t think so.

    This year’s is also unique in that I selfishly upgraded it into a slash bachelor party for myself. And that’s why I’m calling it the 13th annual, plus.

    So what should you expect on this blog for the next 10 days or so?

    You should expect more travel, food, and snowboarding-related content, as well as more photos. I generally never travel without my Fujifilm. I’m also thinking about experimenting with more real-time posts, and possibly even multiple posts per day. Basically something more akin to a social feed. We’ll see if that happens.

    Regardless, if beautiful European cities and sublime mountains aren’t your thing, you may want to check back in early February for our regularly scheduled city building programming.

    Photo by Inés Álvarez Fdez on Unsplash

  • Rear-yard suites and secondary suites built in Toronto over the last decade

    Here is a mapping, from the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, showing the number of “closed” building permits issued in Toronto between 2013 and 2023 for both rear-yard suites (laneway houses and garden suites) and secondary suites (like basement apartments).

    A “closed” building permit probably means that construction is complete. However, it is not uncommon for a permit to inadvertently remain open. This happened to me with Mackay Laneway House. The permit was supposed to be closed, but it wasn’t.

    So here’s the same mapping with open (i.e. active) permits also turned on:

    Three things immediately stand out:

    1. Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.
    2. Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.
    3. North Toronto is wealthy and isn’t having either of these housing typologies.

    Looking at these mappings, it probably seems like a decent amount of new housing. But that’s not really the case:

    • From 2013 to 2023, Toronto issued 2,209 building permits for secondary suites (1,525 have been closed and 684 remain open as of December 31, 2023).
    • And from 2020 to 2023, Toronto issued 898 building permits for rear-yard suites (192 have been closed and 706 remain open, which does suggest some increased adoption). Rear-yard suites only became permissible in 2018, which is why the date range is shorter.

    To be fair, I would imagine that many secondary suites get built without a building permit. So I think the above number is probably underestimating actual supply. But even still, it doesn’t change the conclusion: A lot more needs to be done to increase the supply of new housing in Toronto.

  • An overview of rental housing in France

    Rental housing in France is both heavily regulated and supported through dedicated public funds. Here’s a high-level overview of what that means (via this 2021 Brookings case study by Arthur Acolin):

    • Homeownership rates in France went from 35% in 1954 to 56% in 2001
    • As of 2018, 58% of French households own, 40% rent, and the remaining 2% supposedly get free housing from either their employer or a family member
    • Not surprisingly, younger households are most likely to rent (the figure is > 60% for people aged 18-29)
    • Household size seems to play a major factor in how likely people are to live in public housing
    • France has some 4.5 million public housing units and 17% of all households live in them (which represents about 43% of all renter households)
    • Within the unsubsidized rental market, 93.5% of households live in homes owned by individual investors (this is as of 2013) and only about 3.5% live in homes owned by institutional investors
    • This is pretty typical of Europe, where multi-family isn’t an established real estate asset class like it is in North America; so for those of you who like to hate on individual condo investors, check out France
    • In the decade between 2010 and 2020, 28 metro regions in France adopted some form of rent control and, in a few markets, like Paris and Lille, there are also maximum rents that can be charged for specific housing types

    If you’re interested in rental housing, Brookings also has articles covering the US, Germany, Spain, Japan, and the UK. They can be found here.

  • Toward positive ZOPAs

    This example, by Matt Levine, is a funny way to understand how many negotiations work:

    In negotiations, it is often helpful to have someone else, some “absent principal,” to blame for your position. You go to a car dealership, the salesperson says “this car costs $25,000,” you say “I want to pay $21,000,” she says “I like you, I want you in this car, but my boss won’t let me go lower than $24,000,” you say “$22,000,” she says “I really want this to work out, let me check with my boss,” she goes into the break room and watches TikToks on her phone for five minutes, she comes back and says “my boss is really mad at me but I talked him down to $23,500.”

    The boss is a crutch, an excuse. The salesperson is adversarial to you — she wants to charge more, you want to pay less — but wants you to feel like she’s on your side, so you trust her and agree to her proposals.

    Now, Matt ultimately goes on to talk about how in some situations, such as in the financial industry, this could be considered criminal behavior. But that’s a more nuanced topic for his column, and not for this blog. Here, we’re just going to use it as a lead-in to say that negotiating is kind of important for real estate.

    In fact, when I was in grad school, my mentors used to always say to me, “everyone should take a negotiating class.” And so I went and did that. It was a lot of fun. I remember us being given “positions”, and then we’d have to go out and see what we could negotiate.

    One particular concept that I often find myself coming back to is something referred to as the “ZOPA.” The Russians in my class were quick to point out that this sounds like the word ass in their language, but in the world of negotiating it stands for “Zone of Possible Agreement.”

    What it describes is whether there’s an overlap between what both parties are willing to accept. For example, if a buyer is willing to pay as much as $100 for a particular piece of real estate, and the seller is willing to go as low as $80, then there is a positive ZOPA of $20.

    This means that a deal should theoretically happen. However, interestingly enough, I discovered in my classroom simulations that negotiations can still arrive at an impasse, even with a positive ZOPA. Some people want to do deals, and some people like to extract everything they can from a negotiation.

    Of course, if you have a negative ZOPA (i.e. no overlap in what the parties are willing to accept), then it’s obviously pretty hard, if not largely impossible, to come to a deal. And since 2022, you could say that the real estate industry has been characterized by a greater number of negative ZOPA scenarios.

    But if my predictions for this year are correct, then 2024 will be the year where we start to see some more positive ones.

  • When do iconic chairs actually become iconic?

    Search for the most iconic chair designs in the world and you’ll likely come across a list that includes:

    • Wassily Chair by Marcel Breuer (1928)
    • Barcelona Chair by Mies van der Rohe (1929)
    • Grand Consort by Charlotte Perriand, Le Corbusier, and Pierre Jeanneret (1928)
    • The various Eames Chairs (starting in 1945)
    • Wishbone Chair by Hans Wegner (1949)
    • Wiggles Side Chair by Frank Gehry (1972)
    • And the list goes on.

    Most of these chairs also look as if they were just designed yesterday. Meaning, they’re timeless and have stood the test of time. But they are mostly older designs. Which raises an interesting question: How much does the passage of time play in a role in determining whether or not something is “iconic”?

    There are some more recent designs that you could call iconic. The Roly-Poly Chair by Faye Toogood (2014) and the Louis Ghost Chair by Philippe Stark (2002) come to mind. This suggests that really great designs can become immediate classics. (Though, this latter example is a reinterpretation of a classic French chair that in and of itself is an icon.)

    What I think is the mostly right answer is that, yeah, sometimes you can catch lighting in a bottle. The Louis Ghost Chair, for instance, is one of the top selling chairs of the 21st century. It’s a clever and modern take that used new technologies (as is often the case) to revisit an old classic. Starck nailed it.

    But more often than not, you probably need time. Time is what allows the object to form cultural associations in our mind and to prove that it is, in fact, timeless. However, if this is truly the case, then it makes it difficult to determine if we’re still producing as many design icons today as we did in the past. We won’t really know until they become old.

    Image: Louis Ghost Chair via Knoll

  • Blockchain gas fees are dropping — that’s good

    I watched the BlackBerry movie the other week and right away I thought, “whoa, is Jim Balsillie really like that?” Supposedly, kind of. Either way, it was a good movie that naturally ended with the fall of BlackBerry, with Balsillie not getting an NHL team, and with Mike Lazaridis dismissing the first iPhone as a toy. “Who wants to use a phone without a keyboard?”

    We all know these stories. In fact, they feel trite in retrospect. There’s Blockbuster, Kodak, and countless others. But these moments are clearly a lot harder to identify in the moment. And today, at least for me, it feels like this moment for crypto and blockchains.

    It’s easy to dismiss this space. Among other things, a blockchain is an objectively worse database. They’re slower than today’s alternatives. They require more computing power. There’s no customer service when something goes wrong. And, it generally costs a lot more to save new information to a blockchain (this cost is called a gas fee).

    At the peak of the market in 2021, the average quarterly gas fee (cost per transaction) on the Ethereum network reached about US$37. Given this, nobody wanted to use this database to buy a $2 coffee. (However, many people were, at least at the time, willing to use it to buy expensive NFTs.)

    But as Tomasz Tunguz outlines in this great post called “Gas Gas Revolution”, the cost of saving data to a blockchain has dropped dramatically over the last few years. And all signs indicate that this trend is only going to continue. So what happens when it becomes cheap/basically free to save to these worse databases?

    Well, if you believe that “decentralized” and open databases are going to unlock powerful new innovations, the correct answer is probably: a lot. And then all of a sudden, they’ll be better databases.

  • Should more people live together?

    We know that, for a variety of reasons, more and more people are living alone. As of 2018, single-person households represented about 28% of all households in the US. This is up from 13.1% in 1960.

    Here in Canada, single-person households became the predominant household type in 2016 (we’re also at 28%) for the first time in Canada’s 150+ year history. And the numbers are even higher for some European countries. In Finland, Germany, and Norway, more than 4 in 10 households are single-person.

    Part of this has to do with people living longer. In Canada, 42% of people aged 85 or older (and living in a private household) live alone. But part of this is also cultural. Japan has one of the oldest populations in the world, but it doesn’t have the highest percentage of single-person households. Although, the number is relatively high and increasing. It’s nearly 40%.

    Whatever the case may be, you could argue that there appears to be some sort of global trend line toward more people living alone. But here’s an important question: Is this a good thing?

    Albert Wenger recently argued in this blog post that, actually, we need new forms of living together. Whether it’s multigenerational living or coliving with like-minded friends, there are clear benefits to living with other people. You get to share resources. You get elders that can look after kids. And you get company.

    There’s also an opportunity to curate your environment. As Phil Levin puts it on his coliving blog Supernuclear: “If your home is filled with motivated people, you will be more motivated. [And] if your home is filled with funny people, you will laugh more.”

    Albert posits that office conversions (which are obviously in vogue right now) could serve as an opportunity to rethink our built environment around coliving. And while this is certainly true, I’m not sure we need it to happen. There are ways we can live together today, within our existing environment, if we want to.

    The question is: do we?

  • Okay, I’m hooked

    I’ve always loved cycling, but never before have I had a bike like this:

    And boy does it make a world of a difference.

    Here’s my inaugural ride (excluding the night ride I did last week where I mostly couldn’t see where I was going):

    The High Park loop was a lot of fun. The entire park is closed to cars on the weekends (though I understand that some people are upset about this feature).

    I want to do a ride like this at least once a week, which means I’m probably going to need to get something from Pas Normal Studios to pad my ass. I’m also working my way up to clipless shoes.

    Cycling is fun and Toronto is a great city for it.

  • I finally got a road bike

    I did it. I finally got (well, ordered) a new and more serious road bike.

    I have been planning to do this since last year. I almost bought a friend’s Cervelo a few weeks ago, but I took it to Gears on King Street and they immediately told me it was too small for me. The frame was 58cm and apparently I need 60cm.

    So I instead ordered a new Cannondale CAAD13. It’s one that my serious cycling friends — people like Jeremiah Shamess — tell me is a good “starter bike.”

    I’m excited to get going. In the winter, I am, as most of you know, all about snowboarding. But I need something active/challenging for the summer that I can be equally fanatical about. Maybe that thing will be cycling.

    The one thing I do need to give some more thought to is cycling to the office. I know a bunch of people who do this, but they tend to go to the gym and then shower before heading to their desk. I’m not sure I want to make this my morning routine.

    Either way, I guess it’s time to dust off my Strava. If any of you are into cycling, hit me up on Twitter/X.

    Photo: Cannondale

  • Parkview Mountain House starts construction

    I am in Park City for the weekend because we just started site works for Parkview Mountain House (PMH).

    When you’re building in the mountains, there are generally two types of sites: sites that are uphill from the road and sites that are downhill from the road.

    The latter is significantly harder to build on because you have to first create access to the lot, which means bringing in soil and creating a ramp. You may also end up craning in materials.

    Thankfully, our site is on the uphill side. You bring in an excavator, dig into the mountain, and then you have a flat workable site.

    That’s what we’re doing on site right now and it’s what you’re seeing above — a big hole in the side of a mountain. And it’s pretty exciting.

    Photos: Isaac Silvera