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

  • New land development across the US between 2001-2019

    The Washington Post just published this interactive feature showing new developed land (i.e. urban sprawl) across the US between 2001 and 2019.

    It is based on these land cover maps which were published by the US Geological Survey earlier in the summer. Their findings show that between 2001 and 2019, more than 10% of the land cover in the lower 48 states changed during this time period. Mostly in forested areas.

    The WP feature allows you to search by city/address and I would encourage all of you to try it out. As an example, here is Salt Lake City. The gray areas represent land that was already developed in 2001. The purple areas represent land that was developed sometime between 2001 and 2019.

    Images: Washington Post

  • Development as a leading indicator

    Building new buildings takes a really long time. It is not uncommon for development timelines to to span 5-10 years, and sometimes even longer. It is particularly frustrating when you see unnecessary roadblocks and delays throughout the process. But that’s a topic for another post.

    Perhaps one of the positives of these timelines is that they force you to think well into the future. Take for example electric vehicles. Most car manufacturers have already announced aggressive electrification targets for the year 2030.

    What that means is that if you’re starting a new project today, you have to assume that it will be completed into a world where many more people will be coming home and plugging in their car. Perhaps it will be the majority of people. So you probably need to plan for that.

    Another way to think about development is that it is a leading indicator for what’s coming. If we stick with the example of cars and parking, I think it’s pretty clear that parking is becoming increasingly scarce in our biggest cities. The pressures are simply too great.

    In all of our Toronto projects, we are currently building no more than about 0.4 parking spaces per suite. And there’s pressure to bring this number down even further. There are lots of examples of zero parking. The biggest reason is costs, but we also know that big cities don’t function well when everyone is driving around.

    This is also not a new trend.

    If you look at the multi-family buildings that Toronto completed in and around the 60s and 70s, many will have parking ratios in the range of 1-2 parking spaces per suite. This is totally untenable in today’s environment (except for a small subset of the market) and I bet you that a lot of this parking is now sitting vacant.

    Things change. Development can sometimes tell you what those changes might be.

    Photo by Michael Fousert on Unsplash

  • Is entrepreneurship contagious? (And a bull case for urban clustering)

    The research isn’t absolutely conclusive, but Matt Clancy — who is an assistant teaching professor of economics at Iowa State — makes an interesting case (over here) about entrepreneurship being mostly contagious.

    The article cites a long list of studies that have more or less found that being around entrepreneurs can have a measurable positive effect on whether you yourself might also become one.

    There is evidence to suggest that this is true whether you’re a scientist working with someone who has previously commercialized a piece of research, a community with entrepreneurial neighbors, a student with an entrepreneurial mentor, or a child with parents who have started their own business(es).

    According to one Swedish study, the children of entrepreneurs are about 12 percentage points more likely to start a business at some point in their life compared to people with non-entrepreneur parents.

    But as I said at the beginning of this post, the research isn’t entirely conclusive. Could a proclivity for risk and independence be instead genetic? Could it be that entrepreneur types simply seek out other entrepreneurs to hang out with? Perhaps these associations aren’t causal. Maybe.

    But my gut tells me that there has got to be some contagiousness. Here’s an excerpt from Matt’s article:

    …being around someone who has done it plants the seed in your mind that it’s a possibility, something you really could do. For most of the studies, the population exposed to entrepreneurship is a population that wouldn’t normally consider it. For them, exposure has a measurable positive effect.

    What this once again tells me is that there’s immeasurable value in people clustering in cities, local communities, offices, coffee shops, and many other spaces. It’s a hard (probably impossible) thing to replace. And it could be the difference between taking initiative and starting a business, and not doing that.

  • Districts versus spines

    I was recently having a discussion on Twitter about midrise buildings and architect Dermot Sweeny raised the important distinction between creating “spines” and creating “districts.”

    What he was referring to with “spines” was the way in which Toronto is intensifying its “Avenues” with midrise buildings. It is a kind of linear form of intensification which almost always means that each building must transition in some way to the low-rise housing that typically abuts our Avenues. This is far less relevant in districts.

    We have started to increase housing supply in our “Neighborhoods” through things like laneway houses and garden suites, but in most cases, we are arguably not creating urban districts.

    This is of course a touchy subject. But I think it’s an important discussion to be having for a number reasons:

    • Increasing housing supply is a good thing
    • Angular planes and other transition measures make housing more expensive
    • Urban places are, I would argue, better defined through districts rather than spines
    • Mixed-use (employment) becomes more viable with districts
    • Transit infrastructure is better utilized with radial density around its stations

    Can you think of any others?

    Photo: Old Montrêal (Shot on iPhone)

  • Façadism in Montréal

    These are photos from the terrace of a restaurant in Old Montreal called Boris Bistro. It’s not new — it’s been around since 1999 — but that doesn’t change the fact that its outdoor space is absolutely magical.

    The terrace sits behind an old stone facade on McGill Street that is held up with a three-storey steel structure. Hello façadism! I have tried to figure out the vintage of the original building through a cursory look online, but I came up with nothing. (Drop it in comment section below if you happen to know.)

    What we were told at the restaurant was that the original building burnt down, leaving just the facade and then an open space behind it. The size of the trees on the terrace do suggest that it’s been this way for a long time.

    There’s an office building beside it that looks to be of a 90s vintage (465 McGill Street) and this open space was apparently a place for office workers to go smoke. But now the ground floor of the office building and the terrace function as one large contiguous space.

    The result is what you see above. Magic.

    Montréal has been city building for a lot longer than Toronto. Some 400 years depending on how you calculate it. This history has created one of the most beautiful built environments anywhere in the world.

  • Province reveals vision for new Ontario Place

    Plans to redevelop Ontario Place (here in Toronto) have been in the works for many years, even before it closed in 2012. Supposedly it was losing over $20 million a year at that time. It had obviously lost its relevance.

    Back in 2010 (or thereabouts) I was actually part of a team that responded to an RFP to redevelop the waterfront lands. In fact, I was the human who physically submitted the proposal. I was still patiently waiting to hear back about whether or not we were selected, but based on today’s news I’m going to assume we didn’t get it.

    This morning, the Ontario government announced the following vision (architecture by Diamond Schmitt):

    The team also includes Austrian resort developer Therme, Quebec-based recreation firm Écorécréo, and US-based concert company Live Nation. The proposal itself includes a new outdoor “adventure park”, an indoor spa and waterpark, and a year-round concert venue. Premier Ford has also made it clear that there will be no casino, no residential, and that none of the land will be sold to the private sector.

    That’s essentially all I know about the proposal.

    Water features, palm trees, and a new beach all sound great to me. I just hope that (1) something actually happens and that (2) it is truly remarkable.

  • The Tokyo Toilet

    One of the biggest challenges with living through this pandemic has been finding a good public toilet. Drinking in the park is all fine and dandy, but at some point you’re going to need to find a place to pee. From experience, I can tell you that this can be a challenge in places like Toronto and Vancouver. But from the looks of it, the situation is a bit different in Tokyo. Japan, apparently, views its toilets as a symbol of its world-renowned hospitality culture. And so it takes great pride in the design of its public toilets. Last year, Tokyo invited 16 creators from around the world to redesign 17 of its public toilets throughout Shibuya. The list of creators includes big names like Tadao Ando, Kengo Kuma, Shigeru Ban, Toyo Ito, and many others. And the result is probably the nicest collection of public toilets that you have ever seen (somewhere around 9 of them are already operational with the balance expected to open sometime this year). The uniforms worn by the maintenance staff were even designed by Nigo (creator of the fashion brand A Bathine Ape). That’s attention to detail.

    For more about The Tokyo Toilet project and to check out the completed toilets, click here.

    Image: The Tokyo Toilet

  • A solution by Brown + Storey Architects for Toronto’s Un-Avenues

    James Brown and Kim Storey, who are partners at Brown + Storey Architects Inc., recently put forward this intensification proposal for Toronto’s non-Avenue-designated arterial roads. (The term Avenue is an important designation in Toronto planning.) They call these streets Un-Avenues and here’s what they are getting at with this definition:

    The “Un-Avenues” are the city’s north-south arteries, where the standard residential street was widened in the mid-20th century to allow for more lanes for more cars and vehicular intensification. They are not generally lined with retail, but rather with the original houses that have been devalued because of their location on the arterial roads.

    These roads often serve as busy bus routes that connect directly to subways. The widening of the roads has meant there are no trees, narrow sidewalks, and negligible front. Four lanes of rush hour traffic are provided, with rare provisions for bike lanes.

    The Un-Avenues run silently through the single-family residential zones of Toronto. As countless articles have pointed out, the “yellow belt,” where the single-family house reigns, occupies a substantial swath of Toronto real estate on any zoning map.

    It is hard not to drive or move through Toronto’s “Un-Avenues” without thinking that they belong in a different era. They speak to a Toronto that was much smaller and that was not yet a global city. There’s little urbanity. And no grandeur. They feel a bit like forgotten streets in a city that has otherwise decided to grow up.

    Here’s what Brown + Storey are proposing as a solution (images via Spacing):

    I haven’t spent enough time going through the proposal to comment on whether or not I think this is exactly what should be done. There is also the minor issue of single-family homeowners accepting towers, or anything really, next to their backyards. But I do feel strongly that something needs to be done — for reasons of affordability, livability, urban beauty, and a bunch of other reasons.

  • Should rooming houses be allowed across the city?

    One of the debates I came across on Twitter this week was about multi-tenant houses (also known as rooming houses) in Toronto. Currently, they are allowed in the former city of Toronto, parts of Etobicoke, and in York. But they are illegal everywhere else in the city.

    The reason why the rules differ is simply because they weren’t harmonized following amalgamation in 1998. And so right now we are debating whether or not things should be changed so that multi-tenant houses are permissible across the city.

    As you can probably guess, it’s a divisive issue.

    The more urban councillors believe that rooming houses are vital because of their relative affordability. The more suburban councillors are, on the other hand, speaking for their constituents and saying that homeowners really don’t want them in their communities. It’s about “protecting the integrity of single-family communities.”

    No surprise here.

    For this reason, a recent vote on the issue was deferred. It’s expected to come back to council in September. Maybe there will be more support at that time. Or maybe there won’t be. Either way, rooming houses will continue to exist all across the city. Some of them may just be illegal.

    If I had any say in the matter, I would vote “yes.”

  • Soho House went public this week

    So Soho House went public this week. It is now trading on the NYSE under the ticker $MCG. It renamed itself the Membership Collective Group Inc. for the IPO given the myriad of brands that the company now operates. The company went public at $14 a share and with a $2.8 billion valuation. It raised $420 million through the offering.

    My first reaction when I heard the news was that going public is maybe at odds with being a cool, urban, and exclusive membership club. We’re all about creatives; also, buy our stock. But maybe I’m wrong. This is just the company maturing. At 26 years old, the company now has some 119,000 members and has 30 Soho Houses around the world in 12 different countries.

    Full disclosure: I am a member and a big fan of Soho House.

    But now that the company is public, we also know that it has never turned a profit. And it hopes to do that by next year, as well as open some five to seven new Soho Houses each year while trying to remain “asset light”. As the company does this and pushes toward profitability, there is, of course, a very natural question about what that does to the experience and the overall brand.

    Does it get diluted at all?

    I don’t think that necessarily needs to be the case. But of course the company will end up evolving. On a related note, if anyone from Soho House / MCG is reading this post (unlikely), I would love to connect about an opportunity here in the Toronto area. I think it has the potential to become something truly remarkable — not to mention, much needed. I can be reached, here.