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

  • The urban spectacle

    The term flâneur is a French noun that more or less translates into lounger or saunterer. Its origins date back to probably the 16th century, but it was really during the 19th century that it was imbued with its new modern associations. A flâneur is a person about town, a person of leisure, and a kind of urban explorer. Their goal is to take in city life.

    In the middle of Haussmann’s overhaul of Paris, the flâneur emerged as an important literary and artistic figure in the new modern metropolis. They showed up everywhere from poems to Impressionist paintings. The flaneur was both a spectator, as well as an urban detective of sorts, responsible for hanging out and surveying the changing nature of city life.

    Being a modern-day flâneur is one of my favorite things to do. I love to do it when I’m traveling, but I also love to do it when I’m at home. Always with a camera. (The last year has been particularly helpful at encouraging aimless walks outside.)

    The flâneur is also a reminder that city life is indeed a kind of spectacle. Sometimes we walk around just to be seen and sometimes we walk around just to see others. Presumably, it is one of the reasons why many cafes in Paris arrange their seating so that you face outward toward the street. That’s the important view.

    When the flâneur figure was coming into its own, Paris was going through a profound transformation. And it was unsettling to many. These urban detectives were grappling with modernity and trying to make sense of where city life was heading.

    Though the causes are very different, we are similarly living through a period of adjustment. What will our cities be like in the the post-COVID world? That is, of course, the question. But we shouldn’t forget that our desire for urban spectacles is deeply entrenched. And I am certain that the spectacles will return much faster than most people think.

    This weekend, I set out with a couple of friends to be flâneurs. We came with cameras and drones and with the goal of documenting construction and real estate activity in a chosen meetup spot. Everything was then posted to a shared Twitter account (@unlyst). We’d like to make this a habit. So if any of you would like to join our next meetup, drop me a note @donnelly_b.

    Photo by Latrach Med Jamil on Unsplash

  • The Monocle Book of Homes

    Monocle has new book coming out called The Monocle Book of Homes. It’s a guide to 20 exceptional residences from around the world, spanning everywhere from Mexico and Australia to Finland and Lebanon. In addition to these home tours, the book is intended to serve as a kind of how-to guide for improving your own living space. There’s also a portion dedicated to inspiring neighborhoods and community-driven urban projects. I don’t have a copy of this book and so I can’t vouch for its life-enhancing abilities. But Monocle generally has good taste and always takes nice photos. So I think many of you will appreciate this book. It’s available for pre-order over here.

  • Delivery > mobility

    I was picking up food the other night on Bloor Street (via Uber Eats) and the lineup of delivery drivers outside of the restaurant was at least ten people deep when we arrived. While we were waiting, another handful of drivers pulled over to quickly pickup their deliveries. This is what is happening in our cities right now, especially here in Toronto while we live through another stay-at-home order. And the numbers certainly reflect it.

    Last month in March, Uber’s delivery business (which is separate from the company’s mobility business) recorded a 150% year-over-year increase in annualized gross bookings. The company’s run-rate as of March is now $52 billion. To put this number into perspective, the company’s mobility business also had its best ever month in March with an annualized gross bookings run-rate of $30 billion.

    Delivery > mobility right now. Makes sense.

    To further put this into perspective, total restaurant spending across the entirety of the United States was $670 billion in 2019 (figure from Benedict Evans). So Uber Eats has quickly become a meaningful part of how we eat. I obviously believe that people are dying to get out and eat at restaurants again, but these figures are still interesting nonetheless.

    It’s also interesting to think about the above trendline from a broader logistics perspective. Alongside the rise in Uber Eats, we are seeing a wave of capital move toward “rapid delivery apps.” These are platforms that allow meals, groceries, and other stuff to be delivered, in some cases, almost right away, which aligns with where I think consumers are moving. Rather than making lists and doing weekly shops, it’s now about just-in-time delivery.

    It’s arguably a lazier way of going about things, but water will always find the path of least resistance.

    Many, or perhaps most, of these platforms have adopted an asset light approach. Instacart, which partners with existing grocers, would fall into this category. Their model revolves around gig workers going into existing stores, picking orders directly from the shelves, and then delivering those orders. And it is what Blair Welch was getting at in his recent RENX interview when he reasoned that grocery shopping is still being done, almost exclusively, at local stores.

    This approach is enough for Instacart to be valued at nearly $40 billion, according to the Financial Times. So something seems to be working.

  • From back of house to front of house

    Daniel Foch, Daniel Clark, and Adam Darvay recently stopped by Mackay Laneway House to film a last-minute video tour before the new tenants move in. They had quite the rig setup (see above). There was also a drone flying around that is not pictured here. The full house tour should be available in about two weeks and I’ll be sure to share here on the blog.

    One of the things we talked about during the tour was the future of laneway housing in Toronto. Will we see strong adoption going forward and, if yes, what does that mean for Toronto’s laneways? I think we will continue to see a steady increase in the number of laneway suites that get built in Toronto each year. And so eventually this form of living will become a ubiquitous part of the urban landscape. It’s happening fast.

    Now consider what this could mean for Toronto’s laneways. As garages and parking spaces get slowly replaced by new housing, it will mean that our laneways could at some point flip from being vehicle first to pedestrian first. Mackay Laneway House does not have any vehicular parking. The front door is off the laneway. You enter on foot. That’s how you experience the lane. And Gabriel and I thought it should be celebrated.

    If or when this tipping point occurs, it will trigger a perception change. Slowly but surely we will start to think of our lanes not as back of house, but as front of house. And when that happens, it’ll almost certainly force us to rethink how we design them. Forget utilitarian. Our laneways have the potential to become some of the most pedestrian-friendly streets in the city, especially with a few streetscape and landscape improvements.

    Pushing this idea even further, could you imagine a world where our laneways not only become more front of house, but where the laneway side becomes the more desirable side of the property? If we gave people the option, how many would prefer to build their main house on what is today considered to be the backside? (Remember how things once flipped in Paris?)

    But for the fact that we have an entrenched built form that could make this “inversion” challenging, I think there are people who would prefer to have their front door on the quieter and more pedestrian-friendly side of their property. Either way, I continue to believe that we are in the early stages of an ADU/laneway housing revolution. And things are just getting started.

  • Net domestic migration is still pretty suburban

    For years, the data has been clear. Many Americans are moving from expensive cities, like Los Angeles, to less expensive metropolitan areas like Dallas-Fort Worth.

    But Wendell Cox’s recent article over at New Geography is a good reminder that these data sets can be limited. The US Census Bureau currently tracks domestic migration at the county level only. This can be a bit of a problem as counties vary dramatically in terms of geography and population.

    The New York metropolitan area, for example, is comprised of 25 different counties averaging about 750,000 residents. The Los Angeles metropolitan area, on the other hand, is compromised of two counties averaging about 6.6 million residents.

    These sorts of nuances become important when you’re trying to figure out things like whether people are moving to/from urban cores or the suburbs. Case in point: The San Diego metro area is compromised of a single county. When people move there, the data says nothing about how urban or suburban they might be.

    Dallas-Fort Worth is a lot easier to read. Since 2010, it has had the largest net domestic migration of any metro area in the US: +443,000 residents. But county data reveals that it is entirely suburban. The core (Dallas County) actually lost 57,000 people from 2010 to 2019. And this is not unique to the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

    Photo by Gabriel Tovar on Unsplash

  • Returning to an office-centric culture

    Earlier this week, Amazon announced that it plans to return to an “office-centric culture” as its baseline. Its rationale was that being in an office allows the company to better “invent, collaborate, and learn together.” All of this was laid out in an announcement that was distributed to its teams globally. On the other end of the spectrum, Twitter continues to double down on working from home. The company, which is currently hiring, is even trying to target talent that may be disgruntled by the fact that their current company is planning for them to return to the office. Two very different approaches. So which one is right?

    This is, of course, a great debate right now and the right answer probably depends on a myriad of different factors, some of which are likely specific to the company. Dror Poleg has been trying to think through this problem with something he calls the talent equation (because it’s all about talent). It works like this: level of in-person interaction x overall size of talent pool = innovation and financial success. The basis behind this equation is pretty simple. In-person interaction is great for business. This much we know. But you also need the right talent interacting. Allowing remote work is one way of expanding the size of your talent pool. But again, you do this at the expense of in-person interaction.

    In-person interaction is what makes cities the great organisms that they are. And I believe firmly in this side of the equation over the long-term. Even right now I find that when I go into the office, my call and Zoom volumes go down dramatically and I have more time to think, collaborate, and do, you know, actual work. This is because many interactions don’t require a Zoom meeting when you’re in the office. You stop by someone’s desk. You ask a thing (usually pretty quickly). And then you go off and action that thing. But I also acknowledge that for some companies, access to the right talent — and lots of it — may be a real challenge, particularly in smaller cities.

    Like Amazon, I am a supporter of office-centric work cultures. But I do think that Poleg’s talent equation is a useful way to think about this debate right now.

    Photo by Shridhar Gupta on Unsplash

  • Coupe d’une maison parisienne

    This is an interesting article by ArchDaily, looking at the “evolution of the house plan in Europe” between 1760 and 1939. The article focuses on London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Moscow and includes floor plans, photographs, as well as well-known illustrations like the one shown above. Created by Bertall in 1845, the drawing shows a section through a Parisian house and is called The Five Floors of the Parisian World.

    What it shows is the declining opulence that used to exist in Paris’ apartment blocks as you moved upward. If you were rich, you lived on the second floor, right above the ground floor lobby. The ceilings were higher on this floor and maybe had a balcony overlooking the street. If you lived on the third floor it meant that you were a less rich. And if you lived in the top floor attic, you were poor. That is what this comic is showing.

    Now, all of this changed over time as new technologies, namely the elevator, were brought to multi-family buildings. All of a sudden it became convenient to live higher up and all of a sudden people wanted better views and to get further away from the chaos of the street. What I’m curious about, though, is how posterity dealt with the lower ceiling heights on these upper floors.

  • It’s okay for urbanism to be a bit messy

    The urban-to-rural transect is a New Urbanist planning framework that prescribes a smooth continuum of settlements that go from least dense to most dense. The six zones are as follows: natural (T1), rural (T2), sub-urban (T3), general urban (T4), center (T5), and core (T6).

    Part of this framework is about rejecting single-use Euclidean zoning. Instead of segregating uses, New Urbanism looks to return to a mix of uses within close proximity of each other. This is a good thing.

    But the transect also advocates for a certain orderliness. There should be a smooth transition as you move outward from T6 toward T1. It is about placing things in their useful order and maintaining a certain kind of character.

    Witold Rybczynski makes an interesting observation about this in a recent post called “urban discontinuities.” The point he makes is that some of the most remarkable urban moments are the result not of smoothness, but of “odd juxtapositions.”

    Think:

    – Mount Royal (T1) in the middle of downtown Montreal (T6).

    – The North Shore Mountains (T1) that terminate views from within the building canyons of downtown Vancouver (T6)

    – The walls of tall buildings (T6) that frame Central Park (T1) in Manhattan

    – The wonderful ravines (T1) that cut through Toronto’s urban fabric (T6)

    These are contrasting zones in the transect bumping up against each other. And it turns out that most of us really like these moments. But I think that the bigger point to be made here is that urban environments aren’t always neat and tidy, and that’s because they are a constantly evolving organism.

    That’s not a bug. It’s actually a feature to be celebrated.

  • The rise of the second home

    Real estate brokerage firm Redfin recently did an analysis of “mortgage-rate lock data” taken from the analytics firm Optimal Blue. A mortgage-rate lock is an agreement between a lender and a borrower guaranteeing a particular interest rate for a particular period of time.

    What’s potentially interesting about this data is that (1) approximately 80% of mortgage-rate locks apparently result in an actual home purchase and (2) buyers must specify whether they’re applying to secure a rate for a primary home, a second home, or an investment property. So there’s a high degree of intent that goes along with these applications.

    What Redfin found when they looked at the data is that the growth in demand for second homes is exceeding that of primary homes by quite a wide margin. They argue that this is largely a result of people now working remotely.

    But this rise in demand — at least according to the above data — appears to have started in the second half of 2019. So I think a few more data points would be helpful in understanding what’s really going on. Is what we’re seeing more about acceleration than about causation? And what does this look like a year from now?

    Chart: Redfin

  • One cool thing each year

    Last month I wrote a post introducing the One Delisle video series. Well, in case you missed it, the next two episodes in the series are now out, which you can watch over here. My personal favorite (so far) is episode two. It’s about city building at Yonge & St. Clair and a goal that Slate set for itself to do “one cool thing each year.” That thing has ranged from murals to streetscape improvements, and has included work from artists such as birdO (aka Jerry Rugg). If you aren’t familiar with his work, have a look over here.