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

  • Everything you need in just 16 square meters

    This ArchDaily interview with Gary Chang about nano-scaled architecture is worth a read. Gary Chang is founder of the Hong Kong-based Edge Design Institute and is a pioneer in the world of compact living and small-scale architecture.

    In fact, many of you have probably seen where he lives. His place has been widely publicized over the years. Dubbed the Domestic Transformer, Gary has been living in the same 32 square meter apartment in Hong Kong for over 40 years and has been using it as a kind of laboratory for his design work.

    Depending on where you live, 344 square feet may not seem like a lot. But this is Hong Kong. And in Hong Kong even this is apparently on the large side for some locals. In his ArchDaily interview, Gary talks about the rise of “nano-homes” in Hong Kong — everything you need, including a wine fridge, in only 16-18 square meters.

    Of course, to do this, you kind of have to reconsider how you think about space. Gary refers to it along the lines of time-based space planning. Instead of just focusing on raw space, he focuses on activities and functionality over time.

    “Over the years, I have been more focused into the notion of time rather than the physical space itself, and in this latest model M-2007 (calling it the Domestic Transformer, the year the first episode of the movie of Transformer was launched), I simply explore a time-based system of living in this apartment; instead of me moving from one room to another in the traditional sense, the apartment transforms for me for different functions. I basically utilize the entire home all the time, a great departure from the conventional definition of a home such as the system in Japan in nLDK (n denotes the number of bedrooms, L for Living Room, D for Dining Room and K for Kitchen).“

    For the full interview, click here.

  • Smarter, simpler, happier

    A good friend of mine in Philadelphia just recommended a new book to me by Diana Lind called, Brave New Home: Our Future in Smarter, Simpler, Happier Housing. I haven’t read it yet, so I can’t in good conscience recommend it to you all or comment with any sort of precision.

    But the New York Times seems to think that Diana has convincingly argued that the single-family home is at least partially to blame for a whole host of our societal challenges — everything from economic inequality to loneliness.

    This is, of course, not an entirely new narrative. But it is perhaps a timely read given that we are living through a period of time where loneliness seems to be on the rise and people are allegedly fleeing our urban centers in search of space and distance.

  • The paneláks of Prague

    At the beginning of this year (which seems like eons ago), I wrote about a CityLab series that Feargus O’Sullivan was doing on the vernacular home designs of a handful of European cities. Cities like London and Berlin.

    Well, after a brief pause, that series is back in the form of a CityLab “storythread.” It’s now called, “The Iconic Home Designs That Define Our Global Cities.” In it, he explores the various floor plans, housing typologies, and tenures that you might find around the world. Everywhere from from Singapore to Reykjavik.

    The most recent article is all about Prague’s communist-era apartments. Apparently people call these paneláks because they were initially built using some sort of collection of prefabricated panels. They were a quick and dirty housing solution for a city and country that were rapidly urbanizing starting in the late 1950s. (See, prefab works.)

    But what I find most interesting about the story of these paneláks is how their reputation seems to have changed and evolved over time. They proved to be a far more adaptable form of housing than you might initially think, going from written off and ready for demolition, in some cases, to then becoming a form of aspirational housing.

    Part of this allegedly had to do with a handover from state ownership to private ownership, which maybe goes to show you that architecture and design, alone, aren’t enough when it comes to housing innovation. You really need to consider the whole picture.

    But regardless, it is clear to me that tastes do change, and housing is no exception. Renewal is an integral part of urban life. And one generation’s trash might be another generation’s treasure.

    Photo by Jakub Matyáš on Unsplash

  • Canadian immigration rebounds

    Population growth — so, immigration — is a crucial demand driver for the real estate industry, and for the growth of the overall Canadian economy. Last year, Canadian immigration averaged about 28,400 people per month, according to a recent equity research report (on the apartment sector) by TD Bank. The total number for 2019 was 341,175 people.

    Not surprisingly, this number fell off in March of this year with the closing of our borders. In March, immigration declined to 18,560 per month and bottomed out in April with only 4,135 immigrants being admitted to the country. This has no doubt been a factor in some of the rent softening that we have seen in the multi-family space.

    While it’s unlikely that Canada will meet its 2020 target of 320,000 to 370,000 new immigrants, it’s important to note that we have seen a fairly swift recovery (see above). In June of this year, the number rebounded to 19,175 new immigrants. And I’m certain that most of this cohort still went straight toward our biggest cities.

    It’s also important to keep in mind that Canada’s three-year goal (2020-2022) remains 1 million new immigrants. TD is of the opinion that this target is still attainable, as this “short-term immigration headwind” is likely to flip into a tailwind once our borders become more porous and we get to the other side of this pandemic.

    Looking back on this post from earlier in the week, I think it’s pretty safe to say that you could bucket this immigration blip into (1) short-term dislocation. It is not a (3) long-term structural change. Canada remains one of the greatest countries in the world. We will continue to attract smart and ambitious people from all around the world, and most will want to settle in our urban centers.

    All of this, of course, will be good for the real estate industry and will be vital to the strength of the Canadian economy as a whole.

    Chart: TD Securities

  • Drive and listen

    Who needs to travel when you have, this? This, is a site called Drive & Listen, which allows you to drive around cities — well, watch vides of people driving around cities — while listening to local radio stations. It’s oddly fascinating in an I-spend-hours-on-Google-street-view kind of way. (It’s okay if you do that too.) A colleague sent out the link this morning and I thought it was a pretty clever idea, particularly right now, when many/most of us are yearning to travel, but can’t. The first cities I visited were Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Lisbon, Berlin, and, of course, Toronto.

    Photo by Sasha • Stories on Unsplash

  • Weekly link roundup — laneway housing to SPACs

    Here’s a weekly round up of links and articles that you may find interesting. The topics cover the sorts of things that we usually talk about on this blog.

    • The latest Mackay Laneway House update is now live on the Globizen Journal. The ground floor steel is complete, with framing currently underway. The post has some background on the challenges faced in order to get to this stage.
    • Brick comparison. Here’s a recent tweet of mine. I’m curious if any of you can tell the difference between these two brick finishes and if you have a clear preference. One of them is stamped concrete and the other is real brick (precast concrete with brick slips).
    • Pools as art. Apparently this is a trend right now, but it’s not necessarily a new one. Pablo Picasso accidentally created one when he “signed” the bottom of one in Spain back in the early 1960s. A pool would be fun right now. [FT paywall]
    • Alley house in King’s Cross by architect David Adjaye is currently on the market for £6.5 million. Lots of black. I love the mint green room with the exposed concrete ceiling. Oh, and there’s a pool.
    • Nightclubs are, not surprisingly, really struggling. Most have been closed since March. Unlike restaurants, you can’t really hack together a solution with outdoor dining, heat lamps and takeout. They’re predicated on people being proximate to each other. [Sorry, another FT paywall]
    • SPACs are so hot right now, particularly in the world of Chamath Palihapitiya and Social Capital. A good follow-up to this week’s earlier post about $IPOB’s merger with real estate startup Opendoor.
    • Monocle has just published a new book about “gentle living.” It’s a guide to “slowing down, enjoying more and being happy.” I’m trying to do more of this, or at least be more mindful about it. It doesn’t always/usually work. Perhaps I need this book.
    • “Decade of the home.” Opinion piece about the current desire for suburban over urban locations. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know that I am steadfast in my belief that urban life is going to prove to be incredibly resilient on the other side of this.
    • McKinsey report about the impact that lockdown is having on digital adoption, e-commerce penetration, and the overall customer experience. You’ll need to enter some information in order to download the PDF, but it’s free.

    Photo: Lost House by Adjaye Associates via The Modern House

  • Land and improvements

    At a high level there are two components to the value of a house. There’s the value of the land and there’s the value of all the improvements. That is, the bricks, wood, and other stuff that form the actual house. When a media outlet runs a sensational headline about some shack in Toronto selling for, oh I don’t know, a million dollars, what it actually means is that the land in this particular area was just valued by somebody at this number. In fact, if the property is very clearly a “knock down” the improvements sitting on the land become a liability/cost rather than anything of value. Because whoever buys the land will almost certainly need to remove the improvements before they can build whatever it is they want to build.

    This distinction between land and improvements is a valuable one for many reasons. Here’s one example. In cases where the improvements aren’t some shack, you may be faced with a scenario where a property can be valued in two different ways. You can value it based on the development potential of the underlying land or you can value it based on the income (either in-place or potential) that the improvements are generating, or could be generating with some hard work on your part. If the development value is greater than the value of the improvements, then there will be pressure to redevelop. Conversely, if the opposite is true, it is likely that not much will happen other than maybe capital expenditures applied to the existing building(s).

    Of course, you could also run into a scenario where there’s little development potential and there’s zero ability to invest in the existing improvements, either because the market rents are too low in the area or because they’re capped and/or controlled in some way. In this scenario, it’s likely that not much will happen other than the normal and expected depreciation of the improvements. Maybe one day the development/investment math will work. But in the interim, you probably won’t be seeing any of those sensational media headlines.

    Photo by Andre Gaulin on Unsplash

  • What tribe are you part of?

    This satirical piece in the Beaverton about “biking everywhere” is hilarious because it touches on so many cycling stereotypes:

    “It’s a great way to get around while also staying in shape,” said McFarlen as he biked through a red light. “From tattoo shops to my job at VICE to even the best Banh Mi in the city – I just hop on my bike and I’m there. Why does anyone drive ever? Gross!”

    But the other thing it does is speak to the trade-off between location and transportation costs. Brian McFarlen, the fictional protagonist from the article, is able to bike everywhere (low cost) because he allegedly lives in a central neighborhood (high cost):

    McFarlen, whose parents paid for him to go to film school and has no mortgage, kids, or debt, condemns people who drive in the city. “I hate cars – we should just get rid of all roads and replace them with bike lanes. Isn’t everyone able to live downtown and spend hours of their day biking around the city hitting up all the best micro breweries?”

    I think it’s natural for us humans to form tribes with others that are similar to ourselves. We have two wheels and you all have four wheels. We live in the city and you all don’t. All of these things make us different.

    But there’s certainly something to be said for having a bit of empathy for those outside of our particular tribes.

  • Why we work out

    This recent article by Amanda Mull makes an interesting argument about “Why Americans Really Go to the Gym.” In it she argues that gyms aren’t just about being healthy and looking beautiful. Part of the satisfaction of working out in a collective space is that, among other things, you get to be around people with similar values and you get to prove to others that you are someone with enough self-discipline to stay consistently active. In her words, “proving something to others is often a big part of proving it to yourself, and that’s difficult to do when no one else can see you.” Depending on how you interpret this, it might lead you to believe that we’re all looking for a bit of validation from others. But I think the other way to look at it is that spaces such as gyms and offices aren’t just empty vessels where we come to do our necessary work. They are also social environments that serve some potentially important psychological functions.

    The other thing Mull’s article touches on is the evolution of physical activity:

    In the past 70 years, physical activity in America has transformed from a necessity of daily life into an often-expensive leisure activity, retrofitted into the foundation of people’s identities. As a concept, fitness was a response to the flourishing, sidewalk-free postwar American suburbs and what the fitness pioneer Bonnie Prudden dubbed “the tyranny of the wheel”: Americans went from strollers to school buses to cars, stripping out much of the on-foot transportation that had long characterized life in cities or on farms. “In the ’50s and ’60s, the body became a problem, and exercise developed—it had to develop—because people realized that we were all going to die of heart attacks,” Shelly McKenzie, the author of Getting Physical: The Rise of Fitness Culture in America, told me.

    In short: we had no choice but to create a fitness industry because we systematically removed physical activity from our daily lives. You could argue — as the above excerpt does — that this was largely because of suburbanization and changes in mobility. But I don’t think that’s everything. We also changed the kind of work that a lot of us do and created technologies that allow us to do more without, frankly, moving all that much. Today, doing good work and being productive is often characterized by sitting still for extended periods of time and subsisting on empty calories so that you don’t have to lose focus for very long. Indeed, working out our bodies, and consequently our minds, has become somewhat of a luxury.

  • Our many places

    In the world of planning and community building there is a hierarchy of places that is often referred to as first, second, and third places. As many of you probably know, first place is your home. Second place is where you work. And third places are where you commonly spend your time outside of the first two places. This could be a coffee shop, gym, barber shop, bar, or some other social anchor that serves to connect you with other people. In fact, you probably have multiple third places.

    Some have argued that online communities have started to fill the role of third place. And it is true that social networks have used what works offline in order to build and grow their communities online. So in some ways, the internet has brought third places into our first place. Similarly, lockdown has brought our second place into our first place. And now everyone is debating to what extent we even needed these other places. Aren’t Zoom and TikTok enough?

    Nope.

    For those who don’t have a second place — such as, for example, freelancers — it is common to rely more heavily on third places, which then become pseudo second places. Why is that? Isn’t a first place enough? Because it’s an opportunity to get out and be around other humans. Cities are built around these other places. It’s where, in the words of Jerry Seinfeld, we “coagulate together.” And I just don’t see that changing. Do you?