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

  • 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.

  • Marchetti’s Constant and why commuting actually has positive utility

    @OceanJangda shared a great article with me today about “the psychological benefits of commuting to work.” It is excellent, it cites a lot of psychological research, and I would encourage all of you to give it a read. While it is never fun getting on a packed subway in the morning, the argument is that there are psychological and other positive benefits to commuting. It turns out, we need breaks in our day.

    Here’s an excerpt from the article:

    But here’s the strange part. Many people liberated from the commute have experienced a void they can’t quite name. In it, all theaters of life collapse into one. There are no beginnings or endings. The hero’s journey never happens. The threshold goes uncrossed. The sack of Troy blurs with Telemachus’s math homework. And employers—even the ones that have provided the tools for remote work—see cause for alarm. “No commute may be hurting, not helping, remote worker productivity,” a Microsoft report warned last fall. After-hours chats were up 69 percent among users of the company’s messaging platform, and workers were less engaged and more exhausted.

    It also turns out that there’s kind of a magic commute number. In the mid 1990s, Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti remarked that, all throughout history, humans have tended to cap their commute times at about 60 minutes per day. So a half hour each way. This was the case in ancient cities and it appears to be the case today (ignoring COVID).

    What this mean is that as new technologies became available — such as the automobile — we were able to further decentralize and still only consume about 60 minutes of our day. Apparently the average one-way commute time in America is indeed about 27 minutes. Some people, of course, have much longer commutes, but this is the average. Currently mine is about 12-15 minutes with a coffee stop. Yes, it’s luxurious.

    This 60-minute rule of thumb has become known as Marchetti’s Constant. And there are a number of possible explanations for why this has remained the case. Again, the obvious one is that it helps us detach from work, which is why so many of us have felt burnt out while working from home. We haven’t been shutting off and we need to.

    For more on this, click here.

  • High-rise apartment pavilion turned Japanese izakaya in Zurich

    This past spring a new restaurant called Ooki Pavillon opened in the Sihlfeld neighborhood of Zurich. It’s an izakaya-style Japanese restaurant that is housed in a seven-sided pavilion that was initially constructed in the 1950s. The place looks great (see above), but what you may also find interesting is that the pavilion was initially built as an amenity space (leisure room) for one of Zurich’s first high-rise apartment blocks. Check it on street view, here. Supposedly there are only a handful of these sorts of pavilions remaining in the city. And so it is nice to see this one get repurposed (I don’t know what it was prior to Ooki). It is also a good reminder that, while many of our post-war apartment blocks aren’t the most urban in their approach, rethinking the ground plane can go a long way.

    Images: Ooki Pavillon

  • US downtowns by use and square footage

    This is an interesting chart from the New York Times showing the breakdown of (real estate) uses across the largest downtowns/CBDs in the US. It was put together using satellite data and data from CoStar, including their boundary definitions for each downtown/CBD. The point of the chart is to show that some US downtowns are heavily dominated by office square footage. But if you look a bit closer, there are other interesting takeaways. Look at retail in Honolulu, hotels in Austin, and how much residential many US cities have in their CBDs.

  • A look at “tree equity” across the United States

    American Forests, which is a US non-profit conservation organization, publishes something that they call a Tree Equity Score. What it effectively does is map tree cover across US cities. You can explore what that looks like, here. The score considers things like tree canopy, population density, income, race, as well as many other factors, and then produces a single score from 0 to 100. A score of 100 means that a neighborhood has achieved “Tree Equity.”

    There is seemingly a lot that you can glean from this score. For one, American Forests have found that income and race tend to correlate with tree canopy. Lower income neighborhoods tend to have less of it and rich neighborhoods tend to have more of it. You can start to see what that looks like in the Instagram post embedded at the top of this post. If it isn’t showing up, click here.

    But the other thing that is clear from these images is that rich people tend to consume more space. The richer tree-canopied neighborhoods appear to be less dense. The lots are bigger. And there are instances where the homes look to be adjacent to some large contiguous green spaces. This, of course, is a natural market outcome.

    The Tree Equity Score tries to correct for this in its methodology. If a neighborhood’s population density is very low (less than 2,000 people per km2), then it gets a higher tree canopy adjustment factor. It should have more trees. Conversely, if a neighborhood’s population density is high (over 8,000 people per km2), then it’s acceptable for there to be less trees (lower adjustment factor).

    That said, it would be interesting to see a direct comparison of two neighborhoods — one rich and one poor — that have the exact same population densities and overall built form. I think that would speak volumes about tree inequity. I am also very curious about the global relationship between density and household incomes.

    If any of you have a good source, please share it in the comment section below.

  • Shinjuku east exit cat — a new trompe-l’œil in Tokyo

    Last month, a giant 4K digital cat was installed on a billboard near Shinjuku station in Tokyo. See above tweet. It was created using a 26 x 62 foot LED display, and the resulting effect is very much a trompe-l’œil. The cat looks like it’s sitting on a ledge that is carved into the side of a building.

    The cat doesn’t have a name. But the New York Times has reported that locals have started to call it “Shinjuku east exit cat” because of where it is situated relative to the station. I am going to assume that this name sounds a little more endearing in Japanese.

    Having spent a fair bit of time in Asia in my twenties — mainly Taipei, Tokyo, and Hong Kong — I’ve always been impressed by how playful Asian cities are with their buildings, billboards, signage, and lighting. It can make us feel overly conservative. A trip to Tokyo can be like a trip to the future.

    I appreciate that most people don’t want their cities to be overrun with advertising, and that’s what billboards are usually for. It can get tacky. I get it. But sometimes it just makes sense to stick a massive 3D cat on the side of your building. It’s fun and it captures people’s attention.

  • A mapping of restaurant “chaininess”

    This is an interesting study by Clio Andries (assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology) and Xiaofan Laing (city planning graduate student). It looks at restaurant “chaininess” across the United States.

    To do this, they mapped over 800,000 restaurants and looked for, among other things, restaurants with the same name. If the same restaurant name shows up in multiple locations, it is considered to be a chain.

    Looking at the above snapshot of San Francisco, a yellow dot represents what is thought to be an independent restaurant and a dark purple/maroon dot represents a chain.

    San Francisco has a very high percentage of independent restaurants. In their study, the city receives a chainess score of 28, compared to the national average of 1,247. (Some cities in the southeastern US are in the 1,900s).

    One of the interesting takeaways from this study is that there appears to be a correlation between chaininess and built form. Generally speaking, the study revealed that auto-centric communities tend to have more chain restaurants, versus more independent restaurants in pedestrian-centric communities.

    This is perhaps intuitive if you’ve ever driven and traveled across the US, but it is interesting to consider what is actually leading to this food and beverage outcome. Density certainly plays a role.

  • US migration patterns according to one-way U-Haul truck transactions

    One of the ways to try and keep tabs on where people are moving is to look at the number of permanent address changes. Another way is to look at the number of one-way U-Haul trucks that enter versus leave a particular state. And it turns out that if you’re U-Haul, you do care to track where all of your trucks are going. Each year in the United States there are about 2 million one-way truck transactions.

    Looking at the data from 2020, the top inbound destinations — that is, the states that had the largest net gain of one-way U-Haul trucks — were (1) Tennessee, (2) Texas, and (3) Florida. This is a big jump for Tennessee as it was 12th in 2019. Texas and Florida, on the other hand, were similarly in the top three last year. In last place on this list is California, meaning that it had the largest net loss of one-way U-Haul trucks leaving the state.

    Overall, this data continues to reinforce a shift that is taking place toward more affordable housing markets, such as those in the southern United States.

    For the full U-Haul article, click here.

    Photo by Tanner Boriack on Unsplash