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

  • Leveraging mobile phone data during a pandemic

    Smartphone user data is hugely valuable at a time like this. Which is why governments all over the world from Israel to South Korea are using aggregated telecom data to try and track how their citizens are moving during this pandemic.

    Some are calling this a violation of digital rights. I don’t know enough to comment on that specifically, but I do know that the value to society as a whole is clear. It strikes me that if we knew (1) who was infected (you know this by doing widespread testing), (2) where people have been, and (3) where people are today, we would be in a much better position to contain the spread.

    To that end, Singapore’s Ministry of Health has been publicizing a surprising amount of information regarding its cases. And that data has been in turn made into interactive maps. You can see who is infected, where they live and work, which hospital they were admitted to, and so on. Is this an overshare? Or is this price of collective health and security?

    The New York Times has similarly gone and visualized the movement of people and the virus using data from major telecoms, Baidu, and other sources; though in this case it is more of a retrospective view of what went wrong as opposed to a proactive management tool. The argument they make is that Wuhan’s lockdown was too little, too late.

    According to the NY Times, 175,000 people left Wuhan on January 1st alone. Throughout the month of January, outbound travel from Wuhan accelerated as many started to fear a lockdown. About 7 million people left in January. Where they travelled to can be found here. Would it be too draconian to use this kind of mobile phone data to see who is obeying a lockdown and who is not?

    Images: New York Times

  • Living in a denser London

    LSE Cities has just published a new report called, Living in a denser London: How residents see their homes. The goal of the research project was to better understand how modern housing projects are working (or not working) for Londoners. And so they connected with over 500 residents from 14 completed housing projects and got their feedback on everything from built form to community engagement. Most of the housing projects were completed in the last ten years, but they also surveyed projects from 1980, 1947, and 1902. If you don’t feel like going through the full report, there is also this website and this short film.

    Image: LSE Cities

  • The TO360 wayfinding project

    Despite COVID-19, I am still going to work and going to the gym. (Zoom and Peleton are up 23% and 6%, respectively, from February 21 to March 5, presumably because there’s a belief we’re all going to start doing less of these two things.)

    On my walk home from the gym today I noticed that some new wayfinding had just been installed at the corner of Church and Wellington. I’m not sure how long it has been up, but I am fairly certain it is new. Here is a photo.

    The wayfinding is part of the City of Toronto’s TO360 project, which was launched in 2011 and includes everything from transit shelter maps to finger posts like the one you see here. (Don’t worry, I am confident that detailed shadow studies were conducted before this thing was erected.)

    The “Astral” street furniture that we still have kicking around this city can’t be removed fast enough and so wayfinding like this is a significant improvement. I like the designs.

    But I also think the project is important from a placemaking standpoint. Signage like this helps to brand the city and the places with in it. It also signals a certain degree of internationalism, because wayfinding is most useful for visitors.

    So I am happy to see more of these going up.

  • A dumpster fire in San Francisco

    This past week, San Francisco’s Proposition E was approved by 55% of voters. The measure works by limiting new office development if (or when) the city falls short of its affordable housing target for the year.

    If the city only builds 25% of its housing target (currently set at 2,042 affordable units per year), then only 25% of its annual allocation of office space can be built the following year. (I just learned that large scale office development in San Francisco has been limited to 875,000 sf per year as a result of a Proposition dating back to 1986.)

    San Francisco currently skews heavily in favor of jobs. The city creates about 8.5 jobs for every unit of new housing. And over the last decade, SF has only averaged about 712 affordable housing units per year and has never once met its target.

    So at the moment, San Francisco looks destined to start building a lot less office space. And considering that new office space actually helps to fund affordable housing, I am struggling to understand why the goal seems to be to constrain job growth.

    California State Senator Scott Wiener called Prop E a dumpster fire:

    Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think that if the goal is to build more affordable housing, you should do things that, you know, encourage the actual construction of affordable housing.

    Photo by Eduardo Santos on Unsplash

  • Safety and security per capita

    This is a city metric I haven’t seen before. City Observatory recently looked at the number of police officers (public) and security guards (private) per capita across American cities. They also ask a bunch of interesting questions. Why do some cities have far fewer police officers? Is high security an indicator for “anti-social capital?” (Social norms aren’t encouraging people to behave.) And do some cities simply have more cops because it is perceived to be necessary?

    Here is what they found:

    The average is about 3.3 police officers per 1,000. And in each case, city is defined as the metro area. The study relies on census data and, if we’re being precise, the data represents where people live as opposed to where they work. So some cities could be reporting a lower number simply because police officers tend to live outside of the metro area — perhaps because of housing costs. Either way, it’s interesting to consider why some cities spend a lot more on security than others and why Miami has so many security guards.

    Chart: City Observatory

  • City stereotypes

    The New Yorker recently published a “daily shout” on Instagram called, How You Know You’ve Made It, by City. It is essentially a series on city stereotypes, and it’s pretty funny. Sorry Cleveland. If you can’t see the embed below, click here.

  • A study on expanding housing options in Toronto

    The City of Toronto is currently studying ways to increase housing options/supply and planning permissions in areas of the city that are designated as Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan.

    These are areas that are sometimes referred to as the “Yellowbelt”, because they are seeing very little intensification and, in a number of cases, actually losing population. (They’re also colored yellow in Toronto’s land use map.)

    Ultimately, the goal is to encourage more “missing middle” type housing forms; housing that is denser than single-family homes but smaller in scale than say mid-rise housing like Junction House.

    Here are a couple of interesting charts from the City. Based on Toronto’s Official Plan, “Neighbourhoods” make up 35.4% of the city’s land area.

    In Toronto’s Zoning By-law, the “Residential” category makes up 47.1% of the city’s land area.

    Digging deeper, 31.3% of Toronto’s total area is zoned for only detached houses — which would mean no missing middle type housing. But 15.8% of the city’s total area is already zoned to permit other types of low-rise residential buildings, such as duplexes and triplexes.

    So why isn’t more of that happening?

    As we’ve talked about before on the blog, the problem is that it is exceedingly difficult to make the math work on projects of this scale, which is why most developers don’t want to do them. The web of bureaucracy that you need to navigate in order to build anything in the city is also imposing for non-developers (and developers really).

    But to be a developer, I think you need to be an optimist. So I am going to remain hopeful that this study — and the pilot they want to do in Ward 19 — will result in a streamlined solution for housing of this scale.

    Images: City of Toronto

  • The future of central London

    The Centre for London has just published an interesting report called, Core Values: The Future of Central London. Like most city centers, Central London (or the Central Activities Zone as the report calls it) punches well above its geographic weight.

    Central London occupies about 0.01% of the UK’s total landmass, but is responsible for about 10% of its economic output. It represents about 2% of London’s total footprint, but is responsible for about 40% of total employment and about 45% of economic output.

    Here’s another interesting stat:

    From 1961 to 1983, the residential population of CAZ boroughs in London fell from about 2.5 to 1.7 million. And things really didn’t begin to turnaround until the late 1980s. It took until 2018 for the population to return to 2.5 million. Makes me wonder: How concerned do you think people were in the late 1970s about housing affordability in Central London?

    To read the full report, click here.

    Chart: Centre for London

  • Economies of agglomeration in London

    The media tends to describe agglomeration economies — one of the benefits of big urban areas — as being entirely serendipitous. Minimize travel. Maximize chance encounters at the local coffee shop. And then all of a sudden patents will go up and new startups will emerge. That does that happen, I’m sure, but there’s a bit more structure to a lot of these encounters. Economies of agglomeration is not just about serendipity. It is about the benefits of and the decision to concentrate economic activity.

    Last week, a think tank in the North of England (IPPR North) published a report outlining, among other things, job creation and productivity across England. Based on these metrics, London and the South East dominate, with “productivity” in London being by far the highest. Almost half of England’s new jobs over the last decade were in these two regions. Above is a chart from the Financial Times. The trade-off is wealth and income inequality. And the report does look to how the government could address this centralization of power and wealth.

    Like Singapore’s low fertility rate, this is an instance of leaning into the wind.

  • Have three, or more if you can afford it

    At the beginning of this year, Singapore expanded its preschool subsidies and improved its support for assisted reproduction and fertility treatments. The goal: more Singaporean children. According to the World Bank (via the Wall Street Journal), Singapore has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at about 1.14 children per woman as of 2018. This is down from about 3 in 1970, when the government was actually worried about the opposite problem — too many children.

    Of course, this trend is not unique to Singapore. This is generally the way the winds are blowing in the developed world. Young people are spending more time on education, career, and travel. And they’re delaying marriage (or not getting married). On top of this, family-sized housing has become fairly expensive in most big cities. The fastest solution is to ramp up immigration, but many countries, including Singapore, have concerns about what this does to the “national identity.”

    So there seems to be a preference for throwing money at the problem and promotional material with slogans like this one: “Have three, or more if you can afford it.”

    Chart: WSJ