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

  • More people, fewer new homes

    This is an interesting chart from the Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU).

    It is based on recent population estimates from Statistics Canada, and what it is saying is that the Greater Toronto Area grew by 233,000 people during the 12 months ending July 1, 2023. If you include Hamilton, this number increases to 246,000. And if you include the entire Greater Golden Horseshoe, it increases to 340,000.

    This is significantly more population growth compared to any of the six preceding years. And assuming this 2021 population estimate of about 9.8 million people is more or less correct, it represents an almost 3.5% growth rate. That’s remarkable. It’s also happening at a time when housing starts are declining.

  • Does above-grade parking kill street life?

    Here’s an unproven hypothesis that you can all challenge me on: many or most people only care about the environment while it is convenient to do so. Said oppositely, once it becomes inconvenient to care about the environment, we tend to start prioritizing other objectives.

    The example I have in my mind right now is parking. Now, to be clear, cars are not the best mobility solution for the environment. But let’s assume for a minute that you need parking and you have only two available options: below-grade parking or above-grade parking.

    The former is worse for the environment. If you were to look at the embodied carbon in below-grade parking versus above-grade parking, it would be higher. So from an environmental perspective, you want above-grade parking.

    It also makes for more flexible spaces. It’s hard to convert below-grade parking to much else. Again, this strengthens the environmental case, because now you’re building something that can be repurposed in the future.

    However, unless you’re forced to only build above-grade parking (as is the case in Miami), many/most cities tend to shun it. The most common objectives are (1) that it’s unsightly, and therefore needs to be wrapped with occupiable spaces, and (2) that it kills street life.

    What this suggests is that (1) and (2) are seen as being more important than the environment. And I think this is noteworthy in its own right. But here’s the other thing: this is arguably a false dichotomy. I mean, does above-grade parking necessarily kill street life?

    The above two street view images are from 1111 Lincoln Road in Miami Beach. It’s a parking structure and area of the city that I have visited many times. And I have to say, the street life seems fine to me. What do you think?

  • Development charge litmus test

    Development charges are a topic that is near and dear to this blog.

    In theory, development charges are supposed to be “growth paying for growth.” In other words, they are intended to pay for the incremental services and infrastructure required strictly because of new development. This, of course, sounds right. More people will equal more demand on city services.

    However, development charges also increase the cost of new homes and there is a growing concern that development charges now pay for more than they should. Meaning, they have become a “housing tax”, which is more or less the opposite of what you want if you think there’s a shortage of new homes.

    Frances Bula recently wrote about this in the Globe and Mail.

    Part of the challenge, I think, is that city budgets are complicated. As far as I know, it’s largely impossible for the average person to try and figure out which municipal costs are associated with growth and which are associated with ongoing operations (i.e. they should be paid for through things like property taxes).

    That said, I think this current market environment could create a bit of a litmus test for development charges. As most of you know, new home sales in Toronto have fallen to levels not seen since the global financial crisis and the early 90s.

    This means that construction activity has now also fallen and that, in turn, fewer developers are paying development charges. I haven’t seen the exact numbers, but intuitively the drop in development charges paid should be precipitous.

    Now, if these charges are strictly paying for growth, then in theory, cities should be completely agnostic to this decline. Sure, they’re collecting less revenue, but they also don’t have the new growth. Any growth that is still in the pipeline (i.e. under construction) would have already paid for their impacts.

    However, if this is not the case, and municipal budgets start getting negatively impacted by this drop in development charge revenue, then it suggests that one of two things could be going on.

    Either development charges aren’t enough to cover the true cost of growth and the whole thing is a bit of a Ponzi scheme. That is, we need a constant flow of new developments to pay for the shortfalls of the last. Or, we’re overtaxing new homebuyers for the benefit of incumbent ratepayers.

    I’m sure it’s more complicated than I’m making it seem right now. But this is the crux of this debate: Are we equitably levying development charges on new homes? This current market could offer a clue. If cities start running out of money, it might suggest the answer is no.

  • Dangerous by design

    This is a shocking report from Smart Growth America on traffic fatalities in the US. Since 2010, the number of pedestrians struck and killed has increased by almost 75%. As of 2022, this number sat at just over 7,500 fatalities per year:

    Here are also the top 20 most deadly metro areas:

    Not surprisingly, these hot spots tend to be in the south, as opposed to in older northern cities. And that’s because these tend to be car-oriented places. As the name of the report suggests, they are “dangerous by design.” If you optimize for cars, it means you’re making trade-offs in other places.

    Charts: Smart Growth America

  • Building new cities

    On this blog, we often talk about city building in the context of doing things to help improve a city — whether that be a development project, a new public art mural, or an interesting local business. These interventions help to build a city. But even more specifically, the term has, for many, come to mean building up a city in a positive way.

    But there is another way to think about city building. You can think of it in terms of building actual new cities. We’ve spoken about some of these before, namely this one in California and this odd one in Saudi Arabia. But apparently it is becoming more common. According to The Economist, the world is now building more new cities than it has in the last 80 or so years:

    Egypt’s “New Administrative Capital” is part of a rush of city-building. Firms and governments are planning more settlements than at any time in the post-war period, with many already under construction. Ninety-one cities have been announced in the past decade, with 15 in the past year alone. In addition to its new capital in the north, Egypt is building five other cities, with plans for dozens more. India is considering eight urban hubs. Outside Baghdad, Iraq, workers have just broken ground on the first of five settlements.

    In some cases, it is being done as a solution to urban congestion. If this city is too expensive and unaffordable, just create a new one. This appears to be part of the idea with the above city outside of San Francisco. Of course, new cities can also be created for ideological reasons, or for political purposes, which was the case with Brazil’s capital city, Brasilia.

    Here, the idea was to move the federal capital away from the country’s populated southeast region to a more geographically neutral location in the middle of the country. It also turns out that seeding a new city with government institutions is a good way to get one of these started. Existing cities do, after all, benefit from network effects.

    History points to characteristics shared by successful projects. State institutions can help anchor cities, as Brasília (in Brazil) and Chandigarh (in India) showed in the 20th century. Although both have had problems, people in Brazil and India are voting with their feet. Brasília’s population is growing at 1.2% a year, more than double the national average. Chandigarh, a state capital, is now India’s fourth-richest region on a per-person basis.

    But putting money, ego, and ideology aside, when does it actually make sense to start a new city in lieu of just expanding (or addressing the problems in) the one(s) you’ve already got? Population size can’t be the only factor in determining whether a city is “full”, because Tokyo seems to do just fine as the largest metropolitan area in the world.

    If it hasn’t already been done, I think this would make for an interesting research project. Until then, there’s this (paywalled) Economist article.

  • Desirable vs. affordable

    Resonance Consultancy, which is a placemaking firm that we have spoken about before on the blog, is working on a new America’s Best Cities report. And as part of this, they’ve been surveying Americans about which cities they would most like to live in and visit. The result is a list of the most “desirable” US cities that looks like this:

    1. New York
    2. Miami
    3. Los Angeles
    4. Las Vegas
    5. San Diego
    6. Chicago
    7. Seattle
    8. San Francisco
    9. Houston
    10. Denver

    The long and the short of it seems to be that people generally want to live in the places where they like to travel. But what’s interesting is that if you look at the US cities that have actually grown the most in absolute numbers over the last few years (specifically April 2020 to July 2023), the list transforms into this:

    1. Dallas (+462,639)
    2. Houston (+360,649)
    3. Phoenix (+219,008)
    4. Atlanta (+200,414)
    5. Austin (+189,896)
    6. Tampa (+167,672)
    7. San Antonio (+145,884)
    8. Charlotte (+144,767)
    9. Orlando (+144,542)
    10. Jacksonville (+107,396)

    The only city that shows up on both is Houston.

    What this suggests is that cities very much have brands. And when you ask people where they’d ideally like to live, they think of the sexiest ones. Places like New York, Miami, Los Angeles, and so on. But it when it comes to actually moving somewhere and paying for a home, there are clearly other realities to consider — the most important of which is probably affordability.

  • Salt Lake City wants to turn Main Street into a pedestrian promenade

    Last year, I wrote about how Salt Lake City wants to build a new linear park around its downtown. That post can be found, here.

    Fast forward to today, and the city’s Department of Economic Development has just published a new comprehensive 215-page study that supports turning Main Street into a pedestrian promenade.

    Specifically, the area running from South Temple to 400 South, and including 100 South from Main to West Temple:

    As part of the study, they highlight a number of successful case studies from around the world, including 16th Street Mall in Denver, Bourke Street Mall in Melbourne, and Queens Quay here in Toronto.

    In the case of Denver, they cite the one-mile stretch as single-handedly generating over 40% of the city’s total downtown tax revenue! And in the case of Toronto, they refer to Queens Quay as a global destination. (Toronto readers, do you agree?)

    Like most city building initiatives, this vision is will take years to realize. But it’s interesting to note that, of the eight design alternatives included in the study, there is already one clear preference within the local community — option B.

    Option B is a pedestrian/transit mall, but with multi-use trails. In other words, it is a no-cars-allowed alternative that would still allow bicycles and scooters. Here’s the street section:

    If you’d like to download a copy of the full Main Street Pedestrian Promenade Study, click here.

  • Just give me the fastest option

    I had a dinner in the suburbs this evening. And so in the afternoon today, I opened up Google Maps to figure out how I was going to get there.

    I didn’t have my car with me — because I hate driving into the office — so in my mind, I was either going to take transit or take an Uber.

    These are the time estimates that Google gave me:

    It was going to take me over 4 hours to walk there. Over an hour to drive there. And 47 minutes to take the train there. Interestingly enough, cycling was also going to be faster than driving.

    As soon as I saw this, I shut down the app and decided I would take the train. All I was interested in was the absolute fastest option. And for me at that moment, it was the train.

    I recognize that this isn’t always the case. Sometimes driving is much faster than taking transit. It depends on a number of factors.

    But as a general rule, when it comes to big and dense cities, you really can’t beat trains and bikes for moving the greatest number of people, as quickly as possible.

  • Seoul’s infamous modernist megastructure

    Seun Sangga is Seoul’s first mixed-use complex.

    Constructed between 1967 and 1972, the elaborate structure sits atop a strip of land measuring 50 m x 1.2 km, which had been flatted during the Second World War as a way to contain the spread of fire in the event of an air raid and to act as an evacuation corridor.

    It’s a modernist development that is very much of this period. It’s massive, complicated in section and, in many ways, completely disconnected from its surrounding urban context. Flanking the various buildings are elevated and covered walkways.

    So it is perhaps not surprising that this development has followed a similar fate to many others of this era. While it was initially viewed as being quite modern and desirable — it was one of the first buildings in Seoul to have elevators — Seun Sangga was quick to start showing signs of decline.

    In fact, by as early as the 1970s, the complex became known for its porn shops and a bunch of other informal economy-type activities.

    It’s an interesting, though familiar, story.

    If you’d like to learn more, I recommend you check out this episode of the Urbanist and this article from The Architectural Review. The photos in the article are good accompaniment to the audio-only Urbanist episode, so make sure you flip through them.

  • Do great cities need tall buildings to help them thrive?

    In other words, are tall buildings a prerequisite to competing in today’s global economy? It’s an interesting question. And Jason Barr — professor of economics at Rutgers University-Newark — does think they are an important ingredient. So much so that he wrote a book on the topic called, Cities in the Sky: The Quest to Build the World’s Tallest Skyscrapers. While Jason does acknowledge that not every city needs them, he does suggest that not having them could hinder a global city:

    If you look at Paris’ global ranking in terms of its importance in the world economy, as measured by the size and number of international firms, it’s falling. Paris in 2000 was ranked fourth, and by 2020, it was down to eight, losing out to skyscraper cities such as Singapore and Dubai.

    In the last decade, Paris has shrunk by 122,000 residents. As reported by Forbes, “Many of those leaving are choosing either the suburbs or countryside around Paris, or they are relocating to France’s smaller cities such as Bordeaux, Lyon, and Toulouse.” By limiting its building stock, Paris is driving up housing prices, pushing out residents, and causing suburban sprawl.

    While I agree that tall buildings are important “geography-shrinking machines”, what we’re really talking about is using land more intensely. We’re talking about urban density. But you don’t necessarily need tall buildings to have high population densities. Consider Barcelona, which is one of the densest cities in Europe, and consider this comparison between Paris (few tall buildings) and Vancouver (more tall buildings).

    So is the argument simply that density is good for cities, and that tall buildings are one way to achieve that? Or is it that, now that cities like Paris are built out (albeit at very high densities), the only option for growth is to go up? I guess I’ll have to read his book.