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

  • In support of rubber chicken

    https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1388118381241450501?s=20

    This morning I attended ULI Toronto’s annual “Meet the Chief Planners” event. (Some of my random tweets from the morning can be found here.) Now in its 7th year, it is a great event where all of the chief city planners from around the Greater Golden Horseshoe area come together with professionals from the land use community to network and discuss the future of our cities.

    Normally it happens in the evening over dinner and drinks, which is how I attended last year right before our first lockdown (we were at the elbow bump and foot tap stage of the pandemic). But this year it was of course online.

    First, I would like to say thank you to Multiplex Construction Canada (our partner on Junction House) for the invite. And secondly, I would like to say kudos to Richard Joy and the rest of ULI Toronto for coordinating such a great event with over 400 virtual attendees.

    However, the main point that I would like to make today is that I don’t know how anyone can attend a virtual conference and believe that this is some sort of “new norm.” I don’t know about all of you, but I am ready to go back to rubber chicken dinners and too many glasses of affordably priced wine — pronto.

    I say this not to criticize any of the groups that are working hard today to organize virtual events. I am a big fan of ULI and the work that they do. I would encourage all of you involved in the built environment to join immediately if you’re not already members.

    Instead, I say this as yet another piece of evidence for why I won’t stop writing and talking about the resilience of our cities. Video calls are such an awful substitute for sitting around a table with people and breaking bread. It’s not even close.

    And so as I sat at my home office desk this morning, listening to the conference and eating McDonald’s hotcakes (because, hey, Uber Eats and because, hey, it’s Friday), I couldn’t help but be reminded of how bullish I am on cities and city life. This, I thought to myself, is why cities are such a centralizing force.

    Ultimately, it is also why groups like the Urban Land Institute are so important. It is because our cities matter a great deal and because they’re not going anywhere. If you aren’t sick of me talking about the resilience of cities, you can also find me in this recent RENX article called, “Toronto residential tower boom shows no signs of slowing.”

  • Placemaking as economic development engine

    Earlier this year, the first phase of The Underline opened up in Miami’s Brickell neighborhood. Designed by James Corner Field Operations, The Underline is an eventual 10-mile linear park that will live underneath the city’s elevated Metrorail and run from the Miami River all the way south to Dadeland South Station.

    The first phase — called Brickell Backyard — is the shortest phase at only 0.5 miles. But it cuts through one of the densest parts of the city, if not the densest. Total construction costs for this phase came in at $16.524 million and here’s where that funding came from (source is The Underline):

    $7,688,760 Miami-Dade County
    $1,944,000 FDOT TAP Grant
    $2,000,000 State of Florida
    $4,871,690 City of Miami
    $19,808 FDOT

    The Underline is clearly looking to the example of New York’s High Line, which was also designed by Field Operations. And for good reason: The High Line is a shining example of placemaking as economic development engine.

    The first two phases of The High Line cost around $153 million to construct. But as of 2014 (when I wrote about it here) it was already attracting some 5 million visitors a year and was believed to be responsible for about $2.2 billion in new economic activity. I’m sure the numbers are much higher today.

    As city builders, we are always looking for ways to create value and spur economic development. But it’s perhaps important to keep in mind that the underlying goal isn’t all that complicated: Create cool places where people want to be.

    Images: The Underline

  • Where Americans moved over the last year

    According some recent data from the US Census Bureau and USPS (via this CityLab article), the number of Americans who registered (between March 2020 and February 2021) that they were making a permanent move somewhere else, only increased by about 3%. And the vast majority of people that did move tended to simply spread out and move within the same metro area — about 84%. About 7.5% moved within the same state. And about 6% moved to some other top 50 metro area in the US.

    Some are of the opinion that these moves to the outskirts of cities would have happened regardless. The pandemic simply sped things up. Perhaps. But whatever the case may be, CityLab and others have argued that an “urban exodus” is likely the wrong way to describe what is happening. Despite reports that everybody seems to be moving to Texas and Florida (yes, Miami saw a spike), most people are simply spreading out in geographies where they already happened to live.

    The notable exceptions are the Bay Area and New York. San Francisco and San Jose — both of which usually register as being two of the most expensive housing markets in the US — saw permanent moves increase by 23% and 17%, respectively. Compared to other metro areas in the US, these figures stand out. (I assume this data is collected after somebody goes to the post office and says that they want to change their address forever.)

    But we are already seeing net outflows from San Jose and San Francisco start to taper off (see above). It’s also important to keep in mind that these cities were losing people well before the pandemic started. They are expensive places. And the fastest growing cities tend to be ones that sprawl, have a more elastic housing supply, and are consequently more affordable. That said, I suspect we’ll see this tapering off continue. The “urban exodus” isn’t going to be what it’s cracked up to be.

    Images: CityLab

  • Nearly half of the world’s population now lives in a country with a fertility rate below replacement levels

    Prior to COVID, many projections had the world’s population plateauing sometime in the second half of the 21st century. This is expected to happen because about half of the world’s population now lives in a country where the fertility rate is less than the replacement rate of 2.1 children for every woman. See above chart from The Economist.

    At the start of the pandemic, there was talk of a possible COVID baby boom. People were/are stuck at home and so that would surely translate into more sex among partners. But that doesn’t appear to have been the case for many countries. According to The Economist, births fell by 15% in China last year. The same drop was recorded in the United States last year between February and November.

    Because of this trend, the above projections are now being adjusted and pulled forward, with some predicting that the world’s population could plateau as early as the 2050s. That’s only about 30 years from now, which means that quite a few of us could end up living in a world with a declining population. This is likely to have both positive and negative consequences.

    There are nearly 8 billion people in the world today with China and India being the countries with the greatest numbers. But it’s interesting to consider how recent this figure really is (compounding takes time to gain momentum).

    The world didn’t hit a billion people until the 19th century, and the second billion was only reached by the 1920s, which in the grand scheme of things, isn’t that long ago. Since then the global population has exploded with about 6 billion people being added in only the last 100 years. That’s pretty wild when you think about it.

    P.S. I recently discovered a site called outline.com. It allows you to read, highlight, and annotate articles that you find online. But it also seems to allow you to read articles behind paywalls. Perhaps some of you will find that useful.

    Chart: The Economist

  • 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