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

  • What happened in 2021 — a review of my predictions for the year

    On January 1st of this year, I wrote a post called, “My 2021 predictions.” It was part of a new practice that I have adopted where I try to forecast the year (I will be wrong) and then evaluate how I did at the end of it (the focus of today’s post). This year was, of course, a tricky year with lots of uncertainty. But here’s where my head was at in January and here’s what ultimately happened.

    Life will feel a lot more normal by spring/summer.

    This more or less happened. Cases, at least here in Ontario, were way down by the summer. Those who wanted to be fully vaccinated had the option to be. Cities reopened and summer felt pretty good after a long winter of lockdowns. As soon as it was possible to do so, we reopened our office and many/most people came back. I ended up being in the office this year more than I wasn’t. Of course, I had no idea that Omicron was going to be a thing back in January.

    Working from home/the office.

    I think the jury remains out on this one. It’s still too early to draw conclusions. I have been in the office full-time for most of this year, but I recognize that that hasn’t been the case for everyone. I know from the super scientific “Jimmy the Greek Reopening Index” that I developed that office utilization rates are not yet back. When I wrote about this topic back in October, the US average was thought to be just below 40%. Still, I remain bullish on office.

    An explosion of global travel.

    Well, Airbnb’s stock isn’t maybe as sky high as I suggested in my predictions post. But it is still up over 19% YTD:

    Marriott is also up nearly 27% YTD:

    The reality is that travel was/is rebounding. I managed to take two weeks off at the end of the summer, which is something I hadn’t done in at least several years. But Omicron has certainly impacted the recovery:

    Urban/downtown real estate will strongly rebound.

    I would argue that we saw this play out in the residential sector. Here in Toronto, Q3-2021 saw condo rents in the core increase 11.4% quarter-over-quarter. This was a fairly significant snapback. It was the largest increase in the region, outpacing both the inner suburbs and the outer suburbs. On the for-sale side, we saw evidence of the condo market returning as early as Q1. We were also able to successfully launch One Delisle and are now preparing to start construction.

    Trends accelerating.

    In some cases, what we saw was a reaction to short-term dislocation. Peloton’s stock is down about 73% YTD at the time of writing this. In other cases, what we saw was just a “pulling forward.” (Link to post by Fred Wilson.) The pandemic led to greater consumption of certain products and services, but now those companies could be headed for a period of slower growth. At the same time, there’s evidence that certain things, like buying more groceries online, may actually be sticking.

    Return of restaurants.

    What seems pretty clear is that people are quicker to return to bars & restaurants than they are to return to the office. As we know, getting together in person is fundamental to urban life. Here’s a chart from OpenTable:

    However, this is not to say that many restaurants didn’t have a tough go during this uncertain time.

    Public transit ridership will return to pre-pandemic levels by the fall.

    I was dead wrong and way too optimistic about this one. Office utilization rates remain lower than expected and so people aren’t commuting in nearly the same way. Those who are, seem to be driving more. As of August, Canada’s urban transit networks were operating, on average, at just over 40% of where they were pre-pandemic (August 2019). This is obviously a serious problem for operating shortfalls.

    Migration from high tax states to (warmer) low tax states.

    This is an established trend in the US and so it was certainly not a bold prediction. There are many other factors at play here beyond simply the pandemic. However, as I mentioned in my original post, what is perhaps more interesting right now is the heightened tension between centralization (urbanity) and decentralization. I’ll see what data I can uncover in the coming weeks, but we likely need to get to the other side of this pandemic before drawing any firm conclusions.

    In reviewing this year’s predictions it is clear that I was perhaps overly optimistic (which is far better than being overly pessimistic) and that missed a lot of important stuff. Some of it was unknowable, such as a new variant, and some of it I just missed, which is bound to happen. I could also be more precise and bolder in my predictions, and so I will endeavor to do that in my upcoming predictions for 2022. Stay tuned.

    If you’re not already an email subscriber to this blog, consider making that happen over here. And for those of you who have been reading all year, thank you. I truly appreciate it.

    Photo by Jamie Curd on Unsplash

  • Electrification and a modal shift — both are needed

    The Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) is a non-profit group that works all around the world — everywhere from Jakarta to Rio de Janeiro — to design and implement both transport solutions and policies that help to make our cities more livable, equitable, and sustainable. If you’re interested in learning more about the kind of work that they do, you can download a copy of their latest annual report, here.

    Most recently, the group published a report called, “The Compact City Scenario – Electrified.” In it they argue that two things need to happen together if we are to move humanity toward net-zero carbon emissions and reduce global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. One, we need to fully electrify our transport (which I think is fairly obvious at this point). And two, we need a modal shift.

    To be even clearer, ITDP argues that both of these things need to happen at the same time in order to successfully hit our targets. Full electrification of our transport without any sort of modal shift isn’t going to cut it, and the same is true for a modal shift without electrification.

    Why all of this is important is because electrification is in many ways just a technical problem. We need electric vehicles, we need batteries, and we need the infrastructure in place to charge these vehicles. Among other things, this has meant building new charging stations, retrofitting existing buildings, and encouraging/requiring new buildings to make provisions for a future with predominantly electric vehicles.

    But for the most part, EVs allow us to continue living the way that we have already been living. Just instead of pumping gas, we now plug in our cars at the end of the day. On the other hand, encouraging a modal shift is a fairly significant behavioral change. Though we know that one of the most effective ways to encourage less driving is to build more compact cities.

    This means changing the way we live. Changing the way we get around. And accepting more intense forms of development in our own backyards. It is fundamentally linked to land use planning and so it is going to be much harder to achieve. But if you agree with the above report, we won’t be able to meet our sustainability goals without it.

  • Toronto’s elimination of most parking minimums is now official

    We knew it was coming. But it’s important and worth mentioning again. This week, Toronto City Council adopted new Zoning Bylaw Amendments that will remove most parking minimums across the city. We now join many other cities across North America who have done similar things in order to try and encourage more sustainable forms of mobility.

    If you’d like to take a spin through the draft amendments, you’ll find them linked here. I haven’t gone through them in detail, but I did do a word search for “maximum” given that this week’s adoption represents a pretty clear change in perspective. Here’s an excerpt from the staff recommendation report that speaks to what I’m talking about:

    Recognizing these challenges, this review of the parking standards in the city-wide
    Zoning By-law 569-2013 was guided by the principle that parking standards should
    allow only the maximum amount of automobile parking reasonably required for a given
    use and minimums should be avoided except where necessary to ensure equitable
    access. The previous review, which began in 2005, was guided by the principle that the
    zoning standards should require the minimum responsible amount of parking for a given
    land use. This is inconsistent with Official Plan policies which discourage auto
    dependence.

    One other thing I found in the documents that went to Council was this map of parking spot selling prices in active high-rise developments across the city. Not surprisingly, downtown and midtown are showing the highest prices per parking space. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of all of these dots, but it looks directionally right and I can tell you that at least one of them is correct.

    All of us in the industry know how much parking drives decision making. There’s a joke (half-joke) that when you’re designing a building, first you lay out the parking and then you design all of the residential suites around that structural grid. That’s not the way things should be done. The future of this city should not and cannot be centered around the car. This week’s adoption is in service of that.

  • Self-expression and community move online

    The New Consumer, in collaboration with Coefficient Capital, just published its latest Consumer Trends report, which you can download for free over here (registration required). There’s a lot in the report to flip through, but I thought I would share these two slides:

    Generation Z and Millennials now make up ~40% of the US population and they are soon entering their prime consumer spending years. What’s noteworthy about these charts, but perhaps not surprising, is the extent in which self-expression and a sense of community have shifted from offline to online.

    Very few Boomers, at least according to this report, feel like themselves online. But nearly half of Gen Z feel most like themselves online. What it means to be part of a “community” has also shifted dramatically, with more if it happening online or at least partially online.

    All of this ties into what happened earlier in the week with Nike announcing the acquisition of RTFKT Studios. As I mentioned in this post, the so-called metaverse doesn’t necessarily have to mean VR goggles and living in video games. It can simply mean placing value on the parts of our lives that are now digital. The above two charts suggest that many are already doing this.

    Of course, what all of this means for our physical lives is an important question. Josh Stephens recently argued, over at Planetizen, that the metaverse is going to be really bad for cities. The more we focus on seductive virtual worlds, the less we will focus on our physical spaces. I get this logic.

    But again, I think it depends on how you define the metaverse. And I think VR headsets are a pretty narrow definition. I am both a lover of technology and a lover of cities. And throughout this pandemic I have been fairly consistent in writing about the resiliency of cities. Nothing in this post changes that for me.

  • A figure-ground map of Paris by building period

    This is a great tweet and link:

    The link is to a figure-ground map of Paris that allows you to filter its buildings by period of construction. Here’s what all of the periods and all of the buildings look like:

    Once you play around with the map, it will become obvious that the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century was a prolific building period for Paris (1231 hectares of area). This is what Samuel was getting at in his tweet.

    I would love to see a map like this for every city in the world.

  • Bangkok has a lot of messy wires

    Actor Russell Crowe tweeted this out back in October while he was in Bangkok filming a movie:

    It’s a photo of the city’s notoriously messy communication wires. As I understand it, many or most of these wires aren’t even active. The telecom industry just has a very ad hoc approach to running new ones and there’s also nobody responsible for removing any of the old ones.

    In response to this tweet, the Prime Minster of Thailand, Prayut Chan-o-cha, has called for these utilities to be tidied up and put underground. No more mess! Who knows if it’ll actually happen, but it’s kind of cool to see what can be done with a single tweet.

    I wish I could say that my tweets were also capable of inspiring such swift urban action.

  • Free roads or free-flowing traffic?

    If you are a longtime reader of this blog, you’ll know that I am a supporter of road pricing. I believe it’s the only way to realistically solve the problem of traffic congestion and I believe that underpricing roads (such as not charging for them) isn’t fair and equitable to taxpayers, especially given our need to shift to more sustainable forms of mobility.

    Todd Litman’s recent opinion piece in the Globe and Mail is a good reminder of these points:

    Also, new highways are far more expensive than most people realize, typically costing tens of millions of dollars for each kilometre of lane. Considering land, construction and additional operating expenses, the cost-recovery price for additional highway capacity – the toll required to repay its incremental costs – is typically 50 cents to $2.00 per vehicle-kilometre, far more than what motorists pay in fuel taxes.

    The law of demand is a fairly simple economic concept. It states that price and quantity demanded have an inverse relationship. The more you charge for something, the less demand there will be. And the less you charge for something, the more demand there will be.

    So it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that when you underprice road and highway usage, you get lots of demand — oftentimes too much demand. As Litman argues in his article: “You can have free roads or you can have free-flowing traffic, but it is not economically feasible to have both.”

    Photo by Denys Nevozhai on Unsplash

  • The tricks with masterplanning

    Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail recently made a good point in one of his articles about how challenging it is to properly “placemake” when it comes to large-scale masterplanned projects. This blog post is not at all intended as a commentary on any one project, but I would like to acknowledge that, for a variety of reasons, places do often need time, layers of history, and some patina on them in order to really settle in. When you build big, it can be easy for things to end up feeling sterile.

    It is also true that tastes can change over time (as we have talked about before), though you could argue that this change is driven by the settling in process. Spaces start to get rethought, reconfigured and recast, and that can make them more desirable.

    But it’s not just about time. What else is going on here that makes masterplanning so tricky? Four things immediately come to mind. If you have any others, please share them in the comment section below.

    One, a lot of the old stuff that we love is now illegal and no longer possible. Here is a great example from Paris that I wrote about. But there are countless others. Another example from Toronto might be the corner retail stores that used to dot our residential neighborhoods. In my opinion, these are wonderful additions. They create urban vibrancy. But today they are generally legal non-conforming uses.

    Two, great urban experiences often happen at the micro scale. Things like the perfect patio with a great view of the street and full afternoon sun. Or that intimate side street lined with beautiful homes. These are some of the moments that make cities great. But when you’re masterplanning at the master scale, it is perhaps easier for more of these intimate details to get lost.

    Three, any new community needs to be seeded. Cities and communities are nothing without people. And so what will be the anchors? What will bring people here? How are we going to animate its streets and public spaces? These can be tricky problems to solve and they often take time (and density).

    Four, masterplanning likely equals fewer feedback loops. I recently came across this great line from Chris Dixon: “Composability is to software as compounding interest is to finance.” Composability is the ability to mix and match software components. And the idea here is that open source software allows new software to get built on top of existing stuff (just like interest on top of interest). This way the world never needs to solve a problem twice.

    I’m not sure what the pithy line should be for city building, but cities also compound. We are constantly building on top of the efforts of others, except when we’re largely not, and we’re designing a whole bunch of new stuff all at once, as is typically the case with masterplanned projects. This isn’t inherently wrong, but building a community from scratch will always be more difficult than adding on to one that is already successful.

  • Should we be building more live/work spaces?

    Lately, I’ve become very interested in live/work uses. This is not something that I have written much about over the years, but it is now on my mind for a few reasons.

    One, many of us tried working from home for the first time over the last 21 months or so, and my understanding is that some people enjoy it. It’s not my preference, but I don’t represent everyone.

    Two, photography is a hobby of mine and I’ve always thought it would be super fun to have a studio space to play around with on the weekends. If any of you have any suggestions or spaces available, please let me know.

    Three, there are lots of urban conditions where retail doesn’t work, but a bit more ground-floor animation would be nice. This is commonly how live/work uses have been used. That said, I can think of a number of unsuccessful examples of this in Toronto. It’s tough to execute on.

    And four, there are lots of instances of older non-conforming spaces throughout our cities serving this purpose: inexpensive spaces for people to live, work, and create in. Though often “illegal”, I believe they are important for fostering new ideas.

    Here’s an example that I was reading about this morning in The Spaces and that triggered this blog post. It’s about sculptor Andreas Anastasis and his live/work loft on the west side of New York.

    I don’t know what building this is and whether or not work functions are technically permitted (presumably they are), but it’s an example of what I’m talking about. Take a spin through the video embedded above. If you can’t see it, click here.

    Should we be designing and creating our new residential spaces with multiple uses and this kind of flexibility in mind? Is there a big enough market for it? Does it devalue the pure residential aspect of the building knowing that your next door neighbor might have an office in their space, an artist studio, or a short-term Airbnb rental?

    These are some of the things that I’ve been thinking about and I would love to hear thoughts in the comment section below.

    Photo: Maxwell Schiano via The Spaces

  • Decentralization, centralization, and new frontiers

    In this recent post by Naval Ravikant, he argues that innovation seems to like two things: decentralization and a frontier. He starts by giving the examples of more decentralized states (i.e. smaller federal governments) and the Wild West. The American frontier was, as you know, wild. But it was also a place of great innovation.

    Naval then goes on to talk about the pendulum that tends to swing between centralization and decentralization. And in the world of technology, the last decade has been one of centralization (big companies). But this pendulum is much broader. Cities, as we have talked about before on this blog, are constantly in tension between centralizing and decentralizing forces.

    COVID was a powerful decentralizing force for cities. Everything was closed and we were all supposed to stay home. And so most/all of the benefits of centralizing in a city were suddenly, yet temporarily, turned off. Many people naturally decentralized. But when the dust finally settles, I highly doubt it will be as dramatic as most people initially thought.

    We know that cities and urban density encourage innovation. That’s why “unicorns” tend to overwhelmingly originate in big cities. But here’s the thing: this is a form of centralization. The fact that cities even exist in the first place tells us that their centralizing forces are winning out over the decentralizing ones.

    So how do we reconcile this with Naval’s argument that new frontiers and decentralization are actually what are needed for innovation? I agree wholeheartedly that one of the key innovations with crypto, for example, is that it is decentralized and permissionless. But what does this ultimately mean for cities and our built form?

    Does it encourage a similar sort of decentralization to happen? Or is the irony that decentralized technologies actually still thrive in centralized urban places? We may all be online buying NFTs, but we still want to get together in person to show them off and exchange ideas.