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: Urbanism

  • How to make the internet more like our cities

    I am halfway through reading Read Write Own and I can confidently say that you want to read this book. If you’re already a believer in this “next era of the internet” (like I am) it will make you a true believer. And if you’re not a believer, maybe it will make you one. Or not. Either way, I am thoroughly enjoying it.

    One chapter that will be particularly interesting to all of you is the one where Dixon makes a comparison between the internet and cities. Cities, he argues, work because of a delicate interplay between public and private interests. And the private side works because, among other things, we have the rule of law and the construct of ownership.

    If I own an asset, like a piece of real estate, I’m only going to be confident to invest in it if I know that someone won’t take it away from me (or dramatically change the rules on me), which is why if this prerequisite doesn’t exist, you typically see a lack of investment.

    The same is true on the internet. But currently, the dominant form of networks are centralized corporate networks. In city terms, you can think of these like an amusement park. Once you enter through the gates, you’re in their world. You could maybe rent some space, but at the end of the day, the owner makes the rules. And if they don’t like what you’re doing, they can remove you.

    It’s a pretty stark contrast when you think of it in these terms, which is why it’s hard not to feel compelled when you consider that similar dynamics are playing out on the internet right now. Cities thrive because we have rules, ownership, and the freedom to innovate on top of the foundations laid by government.

    So I’m all for making the internet more like our most successful cities.

  • Toronto’s King Street is not a transit corridor

    Back in 2016, the City of Toronto announced plans to run a transit-priority pilot on King Street in the downtown core. What this meant was that cars would be restricted to only certain movements and that streetcars would be given priority. This pilot was ultimately implemented in 2017 and, eventually, it was made permanent. Presumably because it was doing some good for transit flows. But just this week, new data was revealed showing that, in some cases, travel times today are worse (i.e. longer) than they were before the pilot:

    CityNews has learned that eastbound travel times from Bathurst to Jarvis during the evening rush hours averaged 19 to 26 minutes before the pilot program in 2017. The latest times show it is now worse with an average of 22 to 29 minutes.

    One way to look at this data would be to say, “okay, clearly this transit corridor thing isn’t working. Streetcar travel times have gotten worse. So why bother?” But I think the real answer is this: King Street hasn’t remained a transit corridor since the pilot. Many/most motorists continue to use it, even though some 22,000 tickets have apparently been issued since the pilot began. Here’s a random photo of King Street West taken from my office window one afternoon:

    So I think what this data is really saying is that we’ve probably done very little to actually improve transit flows on King Street since 2016, and that traffic has generally gotten worse during this time. This seems like a more accurate description to me. But of course, it doesn’t need to be this way. If really want King Street to be a transit corridor, we have the power to make that happen. It just means spending some money on public realm enhancements, gates, bollards, and the like. The choice is ours.

  • You don’t want a version of Las Vegas’ Sphere

    Full disclosure: I’ve never really been to Las Vegas.

    I say “really” because I did pass through it as a kid. But I’ve never been during a time in my life when I could actually remember it and, to be honest, I’ve never had a huge desire. Though, I was interested in the work that Tony Hsieh was doing in downtown Vegas. And I have had people try to tempt me with the lure of good electronic music (and by good I mean not EDM).

    Then all of a sudden, Refik Anadol revealed this enormous sphere that shows happy faces. And now I really want to go to Vegas. So at some point, I will endeavor to do that. But the other thought that came to mind when I first learned about the sphere was “this seems to be working, which means other cities will likely copy it and want their own version of Vegas’ sphere.”

    This is, of course, an understandable desire. And today I learned that Los Angeles is working on a “tiny Las Vegas sphere replica” for Sunset Boulevard. Despite being “tiny”, I’m sure it’ll be pretty cool too. But in the end, who wants to be a replica? The aim should never be to recreate some version of what another city has already done (see “Two very different beans“).

    The aim should be to create something new and truly remarkable. And Las Vegas did exactly that with its sphere. So much so that, one day, I may actually visit the place.

  • BC has proposed building more housing near transit

    These days, it is cool to be pro housing.

    Unaffordability has apparently gotten so bad that we are now seeing a groundswell of support for increasing overall housing supply. So politicians are doing things. And this week, the Province of British Columbia proposed some new legislation related to transit hubs.

    As proposed, the legislation will require BC municipalities to designate Transit Oriented Development Areas (TOD Areas), mandate minimum heights and densities within certain radii (broadly 800m in the case of rapid transit stations), and remove parking minimums.

    Not surprisingly, a lot of people are excited about this and, there’s no question, that this is directionally the right thing to do. But I have two immediate thoughts.

    The first is that the devil is always in the details. This all sounds good, but: Are the proposed minimum densities and heights going to be enough to stimulate development? For example, is 4 the right minimum FAR for 300m from a transit station?

    The second thought has to do with the level of excitement surrounding this announcement. (I’m going strictly based on Twitter, which admittedly could just be my bubble). The fact that city builders are so excited about this announcement tells us a lot about the current state of affairs.

    Because what this proposed legislation is more or less saying is the following: “Hey, here’s a great idea! Let’s build more housing around higher order transit and not force the market to build unnecessary parking.”

    Is this really something that should be considered novel? I thought this was just how cities should work.

  • Salt Lake City wants to build a new linear park around downtown

    It is well known that Salt Lake City has some of the biggest blocks and widest streets in the United States. This is typically a challenge if you’re trying to create a walkable urban environment; however, it can also be an opportunity, because it means you have a lot of public space that you can do other things with.

    It is for these reasons that SLC is working on something called the Green Loop:

    And the idea is to turn a ring of downtown streets into a new linear park that looks something like this:

    More specifically, the Green Loop wants to do the following five things (copied verbatim):

    • Develop a robust downtown urban forest
    • Serve as an active transportation corridor for walking and biking
    • Improve water quality through stormwater management
    • Create inviting social spaces that provide a variety of amenities and attractions
    • Create public front yards and gardens within the downtown that support the needs of all users

    In my mind, albeit as a non-Salt Laker, this has the potential to be truly transformational for the city and as impactful as the High Line was for New York. So if you are a local, I would encourage you to complete this short project survey. It’s open until Nov 30.

  • Is less people walking bad for traffic fatalities?

    Here’s some recent data, via CityLab, suggesting that Americans are walking less and driving less, but killing more people when they do drive around. (The report is based on data from 2019 to 2022.)

    My first reaction to these high-level findings is that they seem to make sense. This time period was the pandemic. And people were locked away at home (though I used to take some seriously long walks around downtown during this dark time).

    So I don’t know, I’m not sure we can conclude that walking less is truly a structural phenomenon. Similarly, I’m not sure that we can immediately conclude that cars are becoming increasingly more dangerous.

    According to Wikipedia, deaths per capita, deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled, and total deaths, have all been generally declining in the US since the 1960s.

    However, I do wonder if there’s some sort of correlation between people walking less and car-related fatalities. The most dangerous streets, in my mind, are often the ones that don’t have a lot of pedestrians.

    That’s why, broadly speaking, it feels safer walking around Manhattan than it does Los Angeles. So maybe less people walking is enough to trigger an increase in pedestrian fatalities.

  • More lights on buildings!

    Back in undergrad, I spent a summer living and working in Taipei and Hong Kong. It was my first time being in either of these cities and I absolutely loved it. I was studying architecture. I was really developing my love of big cities. And these felt like two very real and big cities.

    Below is a cheesy tourist photo that I paid someone to take of me from the Kowloon Pier. I still have access to it because obviously my mom has it framed and prominently displayed in her kitchen:

    I’m sharing this photo because one of the things that really stood out to me about Hong Kong, in particular, was how they lit their buildings. There were neon signs (which is something that Hong Kong is, or least was, famous for); lights shining up into the sky (bad, I know); and full light shows and animations across entire building elevations.

    I immediately thought to myself: “Why don’t we have fun like this? Especially considering that Toronto can get kind of dark during the winter.”

    Well, some twenty years later, we are now starting to have more lights. We fought hard for our placemaking sign at Junction House. The CN Tower has since been illuminated. And most recently, we got 160 Front Street West. But it turns out that building lights can be a little divisive:

    My view is exactly what it was when I first landed in hot and humid Hong Kong. And so I respectfully disagree with Jocelyn Squires (though I have great admiration for her work). Architectural lighting adds color and dynamism to our cities. It can also help our cities from all looking the same.

    Let’s stop being so conservative and have some fun. Nice work, 160 Front.

  • More food trucks, please

    There’s no real secret to having a vibrant food truck and street vendor ecosystem. You basically just need to allow it, and then get out of the way and let entrepreneurs do what they do best.

    When I went to grad school in Philly, I used to eat from food trucks all the time. I could get a breakfast sandwich and coffee in the morning. I could get a burrito for lunch. And I could get a vegetarian lasagna for dinner. There was no shortage of options.

    This same kind of ecosystem does not exist in Toronto, but it’s only because we’ve decided we don’t want it to.

    Images: New York City

  • Another look at downtown recoveries

    Back in the spring, I wrote about a study that was done by the University of Toronto and the University of California, Berkeley that measured “downtown recoveries” using mobile phone data.

    In other words, it looked at where people’s phones were lingering to try and determine if they were back in the office and doing things downtown.

    The headline finding was that San Francisco had the lowest recovery quotient (RT) and that Salt Lake City had the highest, alongside cities like San Diego, Baltimore, and Bakersfield.

    But why was there such a spread in recoveries?

    One possible explanation was commute times. The cities with the lowest average commute times seemed to generally perform better in this study and have higher recovery quotients. But it’s maybe more nuanced than this.

    Here is a recent Brookings article by Tracy Hadden Loh that looks at this same study. And to give just one example, she notes that San Diego’s airport happens to fall within the same zip code as its downtown. Meaning, airport traffic would have been picked up as downtown traffic.

    The article also includes the above chart, showing the amount of downtown apartments built since 2019. I don’t think I knew that Chicago was so prolific.

  • Paris on top of Toronto

    There are about 2.1 million people who live in Paris (2023 figure).

    The metro area is, of course, much larger with over 13 million people. But if you look at Paris proper — that being the 20 arrondissements within the Boulevard Périphérique — it’s the 2.1 million number.

    The footprint of this area is 105 km2, and so that means that Paris has an average population density within its administrative boundaries of just over 20,000 people per km2.

    This is about 4.5x more dense than the City of Toronto as a whole. Which is why if you overlay the outline of Paris on top of Toronto, as Gil Meslin has done over here, you get this:

    To be fair, there are pockets of Toronto that are very dense, even by Paris standards. North St. James Town, for example, was estimated at over 44,000 people per km2 back in 2016. But generally speaking, Toronto is not that.

    And Gil’s maps do an excellent job of demonstrating it.