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

  • Don’t screw it up, New York

    New York City is set to become the first in the US to implement a congestion charge (a form of road pricing). I first wrote about this back in 2018, and then again in 2019, but now it is looking more and more like it may actually happen sometime next year.

    I think all urbanists agree that this is an important step in the right direction. But some are now worried that New York isn’t going about it in the right way. Here is an excerpt from a recent Vice article by Aaron Gordon:

    With all these plans, you could be excused for thinking New York is doing congestion pricing—a potentially transformative policy that would be a first in the nation—right by not only charging drivers to access some of the densest, most valuable land in the world, but also giving them alternatives. Unfortunately, New York isn’t doing that, and in fact looks set to completely screw up congestion pricing so badly it may discredit the policy in a way that makes it harder for other cities to adopt it. Rather than approaching it as a lynchpin to a wide-ranging effort to reshape Manhattan’s relationship to the private car, congestion pricing has become solely about money—specifically, paying off enough of the credit-card bill New York has run up with a variety of ill-conceived and poorly-executed projects that it can get more credit cards.

    You can rightly say that this is decades in the making. Mayor Bloomberg first proposed the idea back in 2007, and I’m sure there were others before him with a similar idea.

    So Gordon raises a valid point: It’s important that NYC gets this right. Otherwise, it’s going to be that much more difficult for other North American cities to even think about implementing road pricing.

    For the full Vice article, click here.

  • Venice announces new “entrance fee”

    Over the weekend, we spoke about using road pricing as a way to correct supply and demand imbalances on city roads and highways. Because it turns out that when roads, or anything else for that matter, are free, people tend to use them a lot more. It’s why when you suddenly submeter utilities in an apartment building, consumption tends to drop off significantly. Now it’s no longer “free”.

    It’s for this exact reason that Venice — a city that has been complaining about too many tourists for many years — has decided to implement a new entrance fee. Starting spring 2024, day trippers will have to pay €5 to enter the “old city” of Venice.

    If you own a home there, you’re exempt because presumably you’re already paying property taxes. And if you’re staying overnight, you’re also exempt, because presumably you’re going to be paying whatever hotel taxes the city levies. But if you’re just coming in for the day, you’re going to need to pay.

    Now, I don’t know if €5, structured in this way, is going to fully address the city’s overtourism concerns. Maybe it needs to be a lot more. But it is a step in the right direction. If you have too much demand for a certain amount of supply, you can generally lower demand by increasing the price. Perhaps the only exception is a Birkin bag. Apparently you can charge any price for these.

    Photo by Martin Katler on Unsplash

  • Toronto needs money

    For next year’s budget (2024), the City of Toronto is projecting a $1.5 – $1.7 billion budget shortfall. And over the next 10 years, this shortfall is expected to grow to nearly $47 billion if changes aren’t made. This is according to a recent report prepared by Ernst & Young and Strategy Corp. So right now, all of this is being looked at and debated by Council.

    Where are we going to get this money?

    One persistent debate is whether the city actually has a revenue problem, or whether it’s simply an expense/spending problem. I can’t say that I’ve scrutinized the city’s expenses at any length, so I’m not going to get into that level of detail today. For this post, I’d like to focus on two specific things. The first is property taxes.

    Here is a figure, from the report, showing residential property tax rates across southern Ontario:

    What you will see is that Toronto has the lowest rate of the 35 municipalities that they looked at. Now obviously there are some nuances to consider. The average home price in Toronto is higher than it is in, say, Sault St. Marie. Toronto also has a large commercial property tax base. But even still, historically speaking, Toronto has tended to increase its residential property taxes at or below the rate of inflation.

    This is a problem. And it is the exact same problem that we have talked about on this blog in regards to residential rent controls. If you own an apartment building where the rents are capped and your expenses are, therefore, growing faster than your revenue, you are (1) highly incentivized not to invest in the apartment (you can’t afford to) and (2) eventually going to hit a financial wall.

    Sound familiar? As far as I can tell, that is, at least partially, what is happening here.

    Secondly, one of the first things that I did when I opened the report was run a search for “road tolls” and “congestion charges”. Regular readers of this blog will know that this is something I feel strongly about. Here’s what I found:

    In 2017, when the City considered implementation of tolls for the Gardiner and the DVP, staff estimated that a $2-per-trip toll would generate $5.6 billion in 10 years. The province has refused several requests to consider these options, with the Minister of Transportation rejecting any discussion of uploading or tolling as recently as December 2022.

    This is also a problem. One of the general rules with taxes is that you should ideally tax the things you want less of. Hmm. So why not tax traffic congestion? There is no question that it works. There’s lots of evidence from all around the world. We just lack the political will to actually do it. Instead, we pay lip service with solutions that don’t work.

    At the same time, if we were to actually implement road pricing, I don’t believe that a flat toll is the way to go. $2 also seems low. The best practice is dynamic road pricing that fluctuates based on actual congestion levels. Meaning, if you’re driving at 5am, expect a low rate. And if you’re driving at 5pm, expect a high rate.

    Virtually overnight, we know this would do at least three things: (1) it would reduce/eliminate traffic congestion (congestion levels would become a function of pricing); (2) it would reduce overall carbon emissions in the city; and (3) it would take a meaningful chunk out of this $47 billion budget shortfall.

  • Eliminating poopy water

    Lots of cities around the world, including Toronto, have (at least partially) what is called a combined sewer system. If the sewer system was built prior to the 1940s and it hasn’t been replaced, there’s a good chance that it could be a combined system. About a quarter of Toronto and about 60% of New York City still run on combined systems.

    What this means is that both stormwater and sewage run in the same pipes. Most of the time this is fine, but if there’s a heavy precipitation event and the system backs up, then you have poop getting diverted into rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water. In Toronto, this happens in places like the Don River and the inner harbor, and in Paris it happens in places like the Seine.

    I was recently reading something suggesting that sewage generally gets dumped into the Seine about 12x per year as result of major rain events. This is why it’s such a difficult and expensive task to make these bodies of water swimmable, which is something that Paris wants to do before it hosts the Olympics next year.

    Thankfully, Toronto also wants to do the same. And in 2018, it started construction on the largest stormwater management program in the city’s history. The overall budget is about $3 billion. Once complete, it should more or less eliminate combined sewer overflows, meaning our waters will become a lot cleaner and more swimmable.

    This certainly isn’t the sexiest capital project to announce and talk about. It largely happens behind the scenes. But it is going to lead to a significant quality of life upgrade for the cities willing to take it on — one that will pay dividends well into the future.

    Photo by Andre Gaulin on Unsplash

  • La tour Montparnasse at ground level

    The Tour Montparnasse in Paris recently turned 50. We spoke about that over here. But having visited the tower last week, including its top observation deck, I can now confidently say that I understand why many/most Parisians dislike it so much.

    It is a complex that could be in any city in the world and it is clear that it has been seeing disinvestment for quite some time (presumably due to its upcoming renovation). 

    However, a lot of the discussion seems to be focused on how its built form is a towering contrast to the rest of Paris. This is, of course, correct. But the same is true of the Eiffel Tower. One big and important difference is how these two towers meet the ground.

    La Tour Eiffel sits in a beautiful landscaped park where people sit and hang out (photo by me):

    Whereas the Tour Montparnasse is disconnected from its surrounding context. It feels like that train station on the wrong side of town (photos from Google Streetview):

    So it’s no wonder that its height gets picked on. What is implicit in this treatment of the ground plane is a belief that this tower is not worthy of celebrating. It does not deserve a beautiful park. And it does not deserve to be a ceremonial view terminus like every other icon in Paris.

    Thankfully, the current design for its renovation appears to address this (rendering via Nouvelle AOM):

    And this is arguably the most important design move. Ironically, what happens at the ground level could be what makes people finally appreciate what happens up top.

  • The accents of North America

    Yesterday I watched this three-part series on the accents of English-speaking North America:

    The videos are by dialect coach Erik Singer and, I must say, his ability to fluidly move through all of North America’s accents is incredibly impressive. As I was watching the videos, I kept thinking to myself, “I don’t know what this guy actually sounds like when he’s not putting on an accent.”

    The interesting thing about accents is that they really speak to settlement and migration patterns. In other words, who came in contact with who, and who didn’t come in contact with others? Geographic isolation also leads to unique accents.

    The other ingredient is time. The reason the UK, for example, has so any regional accents is that it had the time for them to develop. On the other hand, if you look to most of the southwestern United States, there is broadly a kind of generic American accent (with the exception of some California and Utah nuances according to Erik). This is because these settlements are relatively young compared to say the northeastern US.

    For Canada, the defining feature is “Canadian raising“. It is what leads to the stereotype of us saying things like “aboot” and “hoose”. It doesn’t sound exactly like this, but there is a way in which we tend to pronounce diphthongs (two adjacent vowel sounds) with open-vowel starting points.

    Open-vowels are sounds where our tongue is positioned as far as possible from the roof of our mouth. If you try saying “about” to yourself out loud right now you’ll notice that this is what happens. Your tongue drops. And it is these instances that lead to “Canadian raising”.

    The other thing that I find fascinating is how quickly language convergence can happen. I lived in Philadelphia for 3 years (for grad school) and when I would come home my parents used to tell me that I sounded fully American. I guess subconsciously we feel a need to assimilate.

    If you’re also fascinated by accents, I highly recommend you check out Erik’s videos.

  • A few charts on working from home…

    Here’s an interesting paper from WFH Research that looks at, “the evolution of working from home.” Not surprisingly, remote work tends to vary by industry, with tech being the most likely to work from home and with hospitality & food services the least likely.

    By extension, WFH prevalence also appears to correlate with population density. This largely has to do with the kinds of jobs that center themselves in big and dense cities. This is interesting because one conventional way to think about cities is that they are places where businesses and people cluster to accumulate wealth. That clustering is still happening, but work is evolving.

    And that is always the case.

    Overall, the authors conclude that about 40% of US employees are now working at least one day a week at home, and that just over 11% are fully remote. They also argue that fully remote work lowers average productivity by about 10-20%, but that hybrid work is closer to flat. Interestingly enough, opinions on productivity differ whether you ask employees or managers.

    If you’d like to read the full paper, click here.

    Figures: WFH Research

  • The Arc de Triomphe roundabout takes some getting used to

    In case I haven’t been clear enough: I love cities. I vividly remember being a kid and being excited to come downtown. My mom has told me that my eyes used to light up — every, single, time. Even today, when I’m away from Toronto and I return home, I’m excited to see the skyline. I miss it.

    This afternoon I got that same feeling on our return to Paris, even though it is not home. We spent the last two days in Normandy, specifically Étretat and Rouen, and as beautiful and as wonderful as these places are, I was genuinely excited to come back to the capital.

    My other revelation is that driving in Paris sucks.

    I would much rather walk, cycle, or take the metro. That is what this city is designed for. Still, I’m happy that we rented a car for Normandy and that I learned — after being honked at — how to appropriately conduct myself in the infamous Arc de Triomphe roundabout.

    Unlike every other roundabout in the world, you do not yield to cars already in the circle; you yield to cars entering the circle. Once you understand that, it’s significantly easier. Though, supposedly, car accidents that happen within the circle are automatically every driver’s fault and every insurer pays.

    I guess that says something about its orderliness.

    Aren’t cities wonderful?

  • Silicon Valley wants to build a new city about 60 miles northeast of San Francisco

    We talk a lot about housing supply on this blog. And most of the time it is about creating more and better infill housing, In other words, housing that leverages existing infrastructure and uses previously developed land as efficiently possible.

    But I suppose there are other options. You could, for instance, form an anonymous holding company, raise hundreds of a millions of dollars from leading venture capitalists in the Bay Area, spend $800 million on cheap agricultural land, and then just build an entirely new city about 60 miles northeast of San Francisco.

    And apparently that is happening:

    In 2017, Michael Moritz, the billionaire venture capitalist, sent a note to a potential investor about what he described as an unusual opportunity: a chance to invest in the creation of a new California city. The site was in a corner of the San Francisco Bay Area where land was cheap. Mr. Moritz and others had dreams of transforming tens of thousands of acres into a bustling metropolis that, according to the pitch, could generate thousands of jobs and be as walkable as Paris or the West Village in New York.

    Here’s the area; it’s generally between Fairfield and Rio Vista in Solano County:

    The real estate opportunity is an obvious one. The majority of the land in Solano County, roughly 62% of it, is zoned for agricultural uses. So it was and is relatively cheap to acquire. In isolation, I would imagine that it would be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to rezone any of it for other uses. But if you buy enough of it and if you have the resources, then maybe you figure it out.

    And if you do, it’ll all be worth significantly more, which is why this group has been reportedly paying many multiples of market value over the last 5 years. Because here’s the thing, paying $6,000 per acre instead of $1,500 per acre is almost certainly not going to move the needle considering the broader strategy. More important is that you get enough contiguous land to execute on the vision of a new city.

    This will be an interesting one to watch. And from what I have read, it sounds like they’re just now coming out of stealth acquisition mode and preparing to engage the broader community.

  • Urbanism versus architecture

    Good morning from rainy New Hampshire.

    It’s been raining all morning, but apparently there is an ocean hidden in the above picture. We also got in after dark and so all I really saw was what I could see on the drive from the airport.

    Whenever I am reminded that the vast majority of built form in North America is car-oriented in nature, I can’t help but think of how sticky all of this is going to be.

    Witold Rybczynski put it accurately when he said, “urbanism and architecture observe different time lines.” Buildings may take forever to build, but relative to urban form, they actually change pretty quickly.

    New materials and styles emerge, and so do new buildings. But the streets that surround them change so slowly, that for all intents and purposes, they mostly don’t change.

    What that means is that, for better or for worse, most of what we see is likely to persist. No wonder there is an arms race going on with autonomous vehicles.