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 birth of electronic music

    What We Started is an interesting documentary about the birth and history of electronic dance music (EDM), starting with house music in Chicago and techno music in Detroit.

    Personally, I view EDM as being distinct from house & techno, and it’s generally not my favorite kind of electronic music. But that’s besides the point. EDM is now wildly popular. It has crossed over into the mainstream and bled into many other genres.

    What’s fascinating about the story of electronic music is that it’s a reminder that new ideas and new movements tend to start out on the fringe. Electronic music came from hobbyists experimenting in their garages, basements, and in warehouses. It was people tinkering with something that they were passionate about.

    And let’s face it, that’s the only way this genre of music could have gotten started because no record label would have signed an electronic DJ back in the 1980s. It was weird and underground, and in the early years, the US mainstream media was openly hostile toward it.

    It reminds me of a blog post that Chris Dixon wrote back in 2013 called, “what the smartest people do on the weekend is what everyone else will do during the week in ten years.” New ideas start on the margin.

    The other fascinating thing about this story is that the emergence of new ideas are often tied to a particular time and place. Think tech and Silicon Valley. In the case of techno, which is often described as being sharper, faster, and more precise than house music, it feels right that it originated in a city like Detroit.

    Detroit was extremely musical, but it was also high-tech. It was machines and assembly lines and that clearly created fertile ground for a new genre of music that relied on, well, machines.

  • Cities are not going away

    Here are the results from a recent survey by The Harris Poll and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which asked 1,200 residents from the six largest metropolitan areas in the US how they were feeling about urban and suburban life during this pandemic. (The exact timing was last fall.)

    The bar color indicates where the respondent current lives. So for example, of the respondents who currently reside in an outer suburb (blue bar), 73% said that they wouldn’t change where they live. They seem to be feeling pretty good about their life decisions right now.

    But for respondents who live in an urban area (black bar), 50% also said that they wouldn’t change where they live. And interestingly enough, 25% of all respondents living in a city responded by saying that they were actually more likely to move to another urban area. (Perhaps Miami?)

    For these urbanites, of which I would include myself, the city is far from dead.

  • Amazon reveals spiraling building design for HQ2 office campus

    Amazon unveiled the design for part of its new HQ2 campus in Arlington today. The plan is a cluster of new office and retail buildings that will accommodate some 13,000 employees. When fully built out, its HQ2 is expected to house upwards of 25,000 employees.

    The centerpiece of the proposed campus is something that is being called the Helix, which is a spiraling building with outdoor walkways housing native trees and plants from the Virginia area. The idea is that it will become a place for people to go for walks and hikes “outside.”

    Here’s what that looks like (image from architecture firm NBBJ):

    In addition to a cool spiraling building, it’s of course also noteworthy that Amazon (along with many other companies) is continuing to forge ahead with its plans to build and occupy more office space in important urban centers.

    Here’s a quote from a recent WSJ article talking about the HQ2 announcement:

    While numerous tech firms have pledged to allow employees to work from home even after the coronavirus pandemic is contained, Amazon, Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and others have continued to expand their urban office footprints. By investing heavily in big city real estate, they are betting that office space will be an important part of their corporate culture after the pandemic is over.

    “We have to think about this as a long-term investment,” said John Schoettler, Amazon’s vice president of global real estate and facilities. “These buildings will begin to deliver in 2025. And so we believe that the world will be a much improved place than it is currently.”

    Like most companies, they are naturally questioning to what extent some employees won’t be going into the office every weekday. But even still, the above announcement is yet another great example of why office space — and spiraling outdoor spaces — will continue to form an important part of the future of work.

  • Two perplexing development narratives

    There are many development narratives that I don’t quite understand. (I’m thinking of Toronto, but you can probably replace Toronto with any number of global cities for this discussion.) One is the belief that our transit network is full and so no new development should be allowed in certain locations, next to certain transit stations. The thrust of this argument is that additional transit capacity must be added before any new development is allowed to occur. This might sound logical, except it ignores the fact that the need for new housing doesn’t magically disappear because subway cars are thought to be too busy during the morning rush.

    Transit systems are also a network, and so does this mean that no more development should be allowed to happen anywhere in the city/region? Or is the goal to simply move development off of higher order transit and into lower-density areas so that the future residents in these new buildings can either take buses to the transit stations that were previously deemed to be at capacity or drive their cars everywhere? (Our highways have excess capacity during the morning rush, right?)

    The second narrative that I find perplexing is that new developments don’t give back in any way. Above is a chart showing residential development charges in the City of Toronto, as of November 1, 2020. This chart outlines the fees that every developer must pay when building new residential, though it is important to keep in mind that there are many other government fees and charges that form part of almost every new development. These are things like parkland dedication and separately negotiated community benefits. But for the purposes of this post, let’s just focus on development charges (aka impact fees).

    Assume you’re building a 400 unit apartment building, consisting of 240 one bedroom suites (60%) and 160 two and three bedroom suites (40%). Based on the above chart, your development charge bill would be:

    240 one bedroom suites x $33,358 per unit = $8,005,920

    160 two and three bedroom suites x $51,103 per unit = $8,176,480

    For a total of $16,182,400.

    But it’s important to keep in mind that these are the rates as of November 1, 2020. They will almost certainly go up by the time these charges become payable for your 400 unit apartment building. By how much you ask? Well according to Urban Capital’s most recent issue of Site Magazine, which compared a development pro forma from 2005 to 2020, development charges in the City of Toronto have increased by about 3,244% during this time period. (The S&P 500 was up about 220% during this same time.) These are obligatory fees that contribute to everything from transit and parks to subsidized housing and municipal services. (The line items above.)

    So it strikes me that there are other more productive questions that we could and should be asking ourselves. Such as, why is it that our transit/mobility infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with new development and new housing demand? What are we going to do to fix that immediately? Why are we not taxing the things we don’t want (like traffic congestion) so that we have more resources for the things we do want (like transit and housing)? And most importantly, what is the best way for all of us to work together so that we can create the absolute greatest global city in the world?

    Photo by Mimi Di Cianni on Unsplash

  • Rich people and nerds (in Miami)

    Back in 2006, Paul Graham penned an essay about how to be Silicon Valley. Since then, it seems like every city on the planet has tried to replicate the successes of the Valley. At the time, his argument was pretty simple. Geography used to be destiny when it came to cities. New York City, for example, is arguably what it is today because of its geography and its deep harbor, which created a natural competitive advantage compared to other east coast cities such as Boston and Philadelphia. But this, he argues, has become far less relevant. Now, you can create a great city pretty much anywhere. So what are the necessary ingredients?

    Paul argued that you only really need two kinds of people to create a technology hub: rich people and nerds. You need people creating new things and you need rich people to fund those new ideas. That’s it. So in theory, if you could just dump a bunch of these kinds of people in one place — Nunavut? — you’d perhaps get unicorns coming out the other end. He goes on to say that Miami is a perfect example of a city that has lots of the former, but very few of the latter. It has lots of rich people, but, in his words, it’s not the kind of place that nerds like. So it is/was not a good startup city. (I’m a nerd and I like Miami.)

    But the year is now 2021 and a global pandemic seems to be helping to change this dynamic. Every tech entrepreneur and/or investor now seems to want to move to either Austin or Miami. To that end, SoftBank recently announced that it has earmarked $100 million for startups that are based in Miami or that plan to be based in Miami in the near future. It’s perhaps a good testament to the momentum that seems to be developing around the startup scene in the city, which is something that their mayor has been incredibly vocal about.

    But here’s something to consider. Was Paul right about the two requisite ingredients for a successful startup hub? And if so, does Miami now have enough nerds? Maybe this recent influx of people was just what it was missing.

    Photo by Cody Board on Unsplash

  • Compact housing for the future of our urban spaces

    “Unexpected approaches for the future of our urban spaces.” Publisher Gestalten has a new book out that you can pre-order called, Vertical Living: Compact Architecture for Urban Spaces. The book is not about tall buildings, despite what the title might suggest, but rather about “impossibly slender homes” in narrow and tight urban spaces. As many of you know, I have long been a fan of compact and creative homes. One, they force creativity. It’s like designing a boat (not that I have done that before). Every inch matters. And two, it is about seeing opportunity where others don’t.

    Sometimes we miss these opportunities because of cultural biases. We believe that a home should look and behave a certain way. But these viewpoints are not necessarily universal. They vary across cities and they can even vary within cities. As Toronto and many other cities around the world try and figure out how to deliver the so-called “missing middle,” we are going to need to open ourselves up to some of what’s in this book — namely the unexpected. New housing solutions that don’t fit within certain neat and tidy definitions.

    We’ve done this before with laneway suites. Formerly an illegal housing type, Toronto is now in the midst of what feels like a laneway housing boom. I don’t know exactly how many are under construction or have been completed under the city’s new policies, but I would wager that the uptake has been strong. And over time, this new housing typology is going to reshape how we think about our laneways. They will evolve along with the new uses that are now beginning to flank them. The unexpected will become the expected.

    Shall we try this again?

    Image: Gestalten

  • The year of the missing middle

    It is starting to feel like 2021 could be a turning point for “missing middle” type buildings here in Toronto. Momentum seems to be growing and there’s increasing interest in finding ways to make this scale of housing more feasible — everything from duplexes to low-rise walkup apartments.

    This week Councillor Bradford published a great op-ed in Spacing Toronto as a kind of call to action: Let’s make this year the year. In it, he provided an update on a pilot project that will be taking place in his ward — Beaches-East York — this year:

    We’ll be setting out this spring to find a city-owned site and the right partners for the project. From there, the work will be to go through every step of the development process, from design to construction. This Pilot is about accomplishing two key tasks. One, building housing that meets the Missing Middle typology while aiming to incorporate the affordability and sustainability elements Toronto needs. Two, through undertaking that development process, to identify the execution issues so we can bring forward the policy corrections that’ll make what we achieve in the Pilot build replicable across the city.

    With the continued run-up in single-family home prices, it really is starting to feel like we’re at a tipping point. Something is going to need to change. People continue to move to Toronto from all over the world. Perhaps this year will be the year. To learn more about the pilot project, take a look at this update report.

  • Carleton University’s Certificate of Real Estate Development

    Next Tuesday, January 19, I am helping to teach the introductory class of a Certificate of Real Estate Development program that is jointly offered by Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business and Azrieli School of Architecture & Urbanism. Here is a full list of the instructors and key note speakers that will be participating in the program. Obviously it is all being done online this time around.

    One of the great things about this program is that it’s a partnership between their school of architecture and their school of business. As you might expect given my background, I am biased in my view that this is a great way to teach real estate development. And it’s one of the reasons why I enjoyed my time so much at the University of Pennsylvania. I was free to take classes at whatever “school” I wanted to.

    When I later went on to study at the Rotman School, I actually tried to advocate for a better real estate development curriculum and for increased collaboration across the business and architecture schools (both alma maters). The response I got, at least back then, was that Rotman already had a real estate major and that it was fine just the way it was. Cool.

    For more information or to register for Carleton’s Certificate of Real Estate Development program, click here. I think there are only a few spots remaining.

  • Building under the Gardiner Expressway

    For a very long time, there was a great debate in Toronto about whether or not the elevated Gardiner Expressway should be removed from downtown and replaced with something else. As recently as five years ago, that debate was centered around removing the eastern portion of the expressway and replacing it with a large surface boulevard.

    But that ship has sailed. A controversial decision was made not to remove the “Gardiner East,” but instead reroute it (that wasn’t my first choice). At the same time, wonderful new city building initiatives, such as The Bentway, have started to reclaim the long overlooked spaces that sit underneath it.

    Another good example of this is the “West Block,” which was recently unveiled at the northeast corner of Bathurst St and Lake Shore Blvd W. New retail uses (such as the above LCBO) and new public spaces (note the above stair/seating combo) have been tucked underneath the expressway’s structure, creating a beautiful contrast between old and new.

    It reminds me of some of the urban spaces that you might find in other dense urban centers such as Tokyo, because this may be the first fully fledged retail space located underneath the Gardiner. I think it is. But here’s what’s counterintuitive: the more we embrace the Gardiner in these ways, the more it will recede into the background.

    At some point in the near future, these spaces will be filled with people. People eating outside at restaurants. People sitting on the above steps enjoying an illegal drink (because of our antiquated liquor laws). And when that happens, I’m sure most won’t even consider what’s above their head.

  • The most unremarkable streets in Toronto

    Within Toronto’s urban structure you have regular streets and you have things known as “Avenues.” (This is among a bunch of other stuff such as Centres and Employment Areas.) What this Avenue designation does is tell you that it may be a suitable location for a new mid-rise building, which is something that I have written a lot about on this blog. Here in Toronto, this means that you would then need to consult the “Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards.” Indeed, if you dust off these standards and turn to the introduction, you’ll find the following: “The Performance Standards are intended to provide simple, straightforward guidance for those seeking to develop midrise projects on the Avenues.”

    But if you want to find some of the most truly unremarkable streets in this city, you need to look at the arterial roads that didn’t quite make the cut to be an Avenue. I don’t want to generalize, but they are generally exceedingly ugly. You can’t help but feel like Toronto has simply outgrown the low-rise building typologies that, in most cases, still remain on these streets. In some cases, they’re also directly adjacent to a subway station, which is kind of like running a great big movie theater with only a handful of seats inside. Maybe one day they’ll grow up to be Avenues. But don’t hold your breath. So what’s another possible solution? Toronto-based PHAEDRUS Studio has an idea. It’s called the Hi-Lo Hybrid.

    Initially designed for a specific client and a specific site, it also happens to be something that could be deployed all across the city. What they have shown here is a 5 storey infill building on your typical long and narrow Toronto lot. As designed, it could house 4-8 units, as well as some non-residential uses, on a lot that previously only had 1-3 units. It would make a lot of sense for some of the ugly streets that I’m talking about. But let’s be honest: it would be almost impossible to get approved. One of the biggest issues would probably be the adjacency/overlook issue that it generates with the neighboring backyards. It’s probably also too tall.

    One of the main reasons why, I think, laneway suites work and are now permissible as-of-right in Toronto is that they replace existing garages. (ADU’s for the Americans.) They reallocate space that was previously used for cars to humans. And so the incremental height / density is not all that great. They, for the most part, preserve precious neighborhood character. What the Hi-Lo Hybrid proposes is not so incremental. It’s bold. It would be a massive fight. I know that and you know that. But bold is generally what you need when you’re trying to do great things and when you’re trying to shape the future. And so with that, I’ll leave you all with some words from the late American architect, Daniel Burnham.

    “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty.”