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

  • Basketball and housing and football, oh my

    Three quick and unrelated things for today’s post:

    1.

    A handful of years ago, before the pandemic, Bullpen Consulting, Slate Asset Management, and AD HOC STUDIO started a somewhat irregular basketball meetup for Toronto’s development industry called City Builder Ball. It, of course, fell off the rails during the pandemic, but as of this month we are officially back at it! We played over the weekend and I can’t tell you how much fun it was to run around a gym for an hour and play basketball very poorly — so much fun. The next meetup will be in January and if you’d like to join, drop Ben Myers of Bullpen an email to get on the mailing list. It is open to all.

    2.

    A few months ago I wrote about a passion project that I am working on with a friend, called Unlyst. The idea is to see if there is a way to leverage the “wisdom of crowds” to determine the current market value of housing. And the way it works is that we feature a home on the website, people (or the crowd) get 14 days to input what they think it’s worth, and then we come up with something we are calling an “unlysted value.” There’s a lot of evidence of this sort of thing working exceptionally well for other markets, so we’re very curious to see if it can work for housing. If you’re interested in contributing your home and/or just seeing how it works, check out unlyst.com.

    3.

    World Cup Finals. What a game! A huge congratulations to Argentina and, of course, Messi. I should, however, come clean and say that I know virtually nothing about football, I don’t know why the field is so big, and that my overall impression of the game used to be mostly consistent with this Simpsons’ take (albeit with more sensationalized flopping by men with faux hawks). But since Canada qualified this year, I felt it was my duty to watch — at least some bits and until we got eliminated. And since the finals are the finals, and since I have an open crush on France, I figured this would also be a good game to watch. Turns out I was right. And now, I am fairly certain that it has turned me into a true fan — or at the very least a “I could watch a finals game every 4 years” kind of fan. Who knew that soccer, I mean football, could be so thrilling?

    Photo by Florian Wehde on Unsplash

  • What does Toronto want to be?

    “On some level, we’re [Toronto] still trying to be a Victorian city.” —Peter Clewes

    It is not an exaggeration to say that Peter Clewes, of architects-Alliance, is one of the most important architects working in Toronto today. Over the last two decades, Toronto has built a lot of new condominiums and Peter’s firm has been behind many of them.

    I mean, I currently live in a building designed by architects-Alliance. My mom lives in a building designed by architects-Alliance. And the first condominium I ever lived in around 2005 or so, was naturally also designed by architects-Alliance.

    Peter’s work is everywhere. And it has been instrumental in helping to define this new Toronto. But what is this new Toronto? It’s hard to say really.

    Toronto may have built a lot of new things and added a lot of new people over the last two decades, but it has done so almost begrudgingly and without the confidence to say, “we are building this way because this is the kind of global city we want to become.”

    I think Peter gets a lot right in this excellent interview with Azure about Toronto, condominiums, and city building. Despite everything that has changed, on some level, we are still trying to be a Victorian city.

    Of course, we are no longer that city. It’s long gone. Time to think much bigger.

    Photo by Dillon Kydd on Unsplash

  • Los Angeles approves new “mansion tax”

    If you’re looking to pass a new ordinance and/or create a new tax, it’s important to have the right name. Take, for example, Los Angeles’ new “mansion tax.” The majority of people do not have a so-called “mansion.” And so signaling to people that you’re going to tax this thing and then redistribute the funds to help others with better housing is, not surprisingly, attractive to many. Here’s how the new tax works:

    Known as Measure ULA — for “United to House LA” — the ordinance marketed as a “mansion tax” will impose a 4% tax on property sales above $5 million, rising to 5.5% on sales above $10 million. So a $5-million sale would include a $200,000 tax, and a $10-million sale would include a $550,000 tax, which is typically paid by the seller.

    Of course, if you’re a rich person with a mansion, your first thought is going to be, “how do I avoid having to pay this?” Here are two unproven and possibly illegal options that I am not condoning in any way:

    For example, if a homeowner is selling a mansion for $15 million, they’d be slapped with a $825,000 tax bill. But if they split up the property into three parts owned by three different entities and sold all three pieces for $4.999 million each, they would hypothetically elude the tax since it only kicks in at $5 million.

    Another strategy might be to hatch deals off the books to keep a sale under $5 million. For example, if a seller wanted $7 million for their house, they could reach a deal with a buyer to sell it for $4.999 million, thus avoiding the tax, but then sell the furniture in the home for $2 million.

    I don’t have a mansion, so I’m fortunate enough not to have to worry about such things. But I do think about the impact on things like new rental supply. My understanding of the ordinance is that if you’re a developer of rental housing, and you buy a lot for $4.99 million, build a mid-market apartment, and then turn around and sell it to a pension fund for $10.01 million, you would be subject to this new tax.

    Hmm. I wouldn’t call this a mansion.

  • The Architect’s Newspaper — 2022 Best of Design Awards

    This week AN announced its 2022 Best of Design Awards, which is intended to celebrate outstanding built and unbuilt architectural projects from around the world. And this year I am excited to share that Studio Gang was awarded two editors’ picks: one for 11 Hoyt in Brooklyn (Built-Residential, Multi-Unit) and one for One Delisle here in Toronto (Unbuilt-Residential, Multi-Unit). Selfishly, it of course makes me very happy to see our project being celebrated for its architecture. Go team! But from a less selfish perspective, it also makes me very happy to see Toronto being recognized in these awards. Because this is about city building, right?

  • A “New” New York

    Earlier this year, the Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, assembled a panel of civic leaders and industry experts to try and come up with a plan for a “New” New York.

    Initially, this panel was intended to be entirely focused on reviving the city’s business districts, and in particular those that have been slow to recover from the pandemic. But scope creep happens and it ultimately grew to include two other important goals: make it easier to get around and encourage “inclusive, future-focused growth.”

    The recommendations from this panel were released today and it’s in the form of a report with 40 specific initiatives. In keeping with its original intent, the first recommended initiative is one that you would expect: “Make Midtown and other business districts more live-work-play.” And what that means is the following:

    We will remove barriers that have kept Midtown and other business districts stagnant by making it easier to convert and redevelop outdated office buildings to other uses, including residential, thereby empowering the market to create more vibrant, mixed-use districts. We will also update old-fashioned regulatory codes that have prevented small businesses from locating, expanding, and innovating in those districts, providing zoning flexibility for businesses to thrive. And we will unite our business districts behind a shared goal of vitality by aligning incentives for businesses to help maintain vibrant business districts.

    New York isn’t the first city to be encouraging office-to-residential conversions and it certainly isn’t going to be the last. I think most of you know that I am a firm believer in office-centric cultures and that I’m in mine 5 days a week. But this is a recalibration that is going to need to take place in some submarkets.

    And here is one of the capitals of the world — New York City — telling us that it needs to happen there.

  • Density is good

    When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, we know this:

    Households in denser neighborhoods close to city centers tend to be responsible for fewer planet-warming greenhouse gases, on average, than households in the rest of the country. Residents in these areas typically drive less because jobs and stores are nearby and they can more easily walk, bike or take public transit. And they’re more likely to live in smaller homes or apartments that require less energy to heat and cool.

    We also know this:

    Consider housing. For decades in the United States, the majority of new homes have been built in the suburbs and, increasingly, exurbs, where climate footprints are larger. As a result, for many people today, it is often easier and cheaper to find a home in a high-emissions community than a lower-emissions one.

    An important caveat to these points is that if you use consumption-based carbon accounting — that is, you consider all of the goods and services that people tend to consume — then other things like income also play a major factor. Wealthy households, for example, tend to fly more frequently, and that is bad for emissions.

    But even with this more accurate accounting, the two biggest contributors to a household’s carbon footprint still tend to be housing and driving. And that’s why when you look at emission maps, like these over here, the urban core still usually performs the best. Density, it turns out, is hard to beat.

  • This is not a hotel

    I am not the target market for Restoration Hardware, I mean RH. But I do think it is interesting the way they are evolving their brand. At the beginning of 2021, the company announced a $105 million equity investment in a development project in Aspen, where it is planning a new guesthouse and, more broadly, a new “RH ecosystem” that will include residences, restaurants, a spa, etc. It hasn’t opened yet, but RH does now have a guesthouse in New York. To be clear, it is not a hotel:

    So what is RH trying to do with all this?

    Surface Magazine recently argued that they are trying to become the “public” version of Soho House. That is, a lifestyle omni-brand that isn’t membership-based, but that will still make you feel rich and special while you eat, sleep, play, and shop for various things for your home. Now, I do think that their target customers aren’t exactly the same person. But of course, I see the parallels. And it’s certainly interesting from an experiential retail, brand ecosystem, and real estate development standpoint. It gets the brand everywhere.

  • [Project Profile] High Street Apartments, Thornbury

    It is an overwhelmingly positive thing for cities when you can somehow figure out how to turn a site like this (which looks to have been a single-family home):

    Into 13 homes and new ground-floor retail that looks like this (non-Google street view images can be found here):

    This particular example is at 752 High Street in Thornbury, which is an inner suburb of Melbourne. Designed by Gardiner Architects, the build has 4 floors of residential, a 5th floor rooftop amenity, and a single elevator with a single wraparound staircase. It was also constructed out of cross-laminated timber.

    For more about that process, here’s a short video:

    If you watch the video, you’ll hear the architect talk about how his firm had been working on this project for about 8 or 9 years. I have no idea the backstory and I’m not about to speculate, but clearly 8-9 years is far too long for only 13 new homes. And the reality is that we often don’t make it easy to build this kind of infill housing.

    Broadly speaking, if you’re trying to encourage this scale of housing, I think at a minimum you want to look at 3 things: (1) the planning permissions need to be flexible and as-of-right, (2) you need to look at the local building codes to see if there are any obstacles in place that don’t necessarily make sense for this typology, and (3) you want to look at the impact fees being levied.

    It’s hard not to imagine our cities being better off having more apartments like High Street.

  • New ideas like buildings people don’t want

    There is a very common story that plays out in cities. It starts with an area that has seen disinvestment and is probably a little seedy and/or dangerous . This creates an environment where rents and real estate as a whole are relatively inexpensive. New, cool and creative businesses start to move in (attracted by said inexpensiveness) and the area begins to turn around. Eventually it becomes suitable for institutional-type investors, and this ultimately leads to everything becoming expensive as a result of demand outstripping supply. Gentrification complete.

    The great irony of this story is that you sometimes, or oftentimes, lose the very things that made the area cool and interesting in the first place. Here is an example from Miami:

    The result has been a property speculation boom that, when combined with the city’s relatively low wages, put many businesses and residents on the street. Asking rents for industrial space, for instance, went up by 53 percent in the last year alone. Nobody can afford to buy, let alone rent, adequate space for a music venue because so much land has been snapped up by outside investors with a predilection for grand, “world-class urban” designs. 

    And for some areas, it is arguably the result of a careful and deliberate plan that was put in place nearly two decades ago:

    Teele’s commissioner district in the early 2000s included both Park West and the historically Black neighborhood of Overtown. At the turn of the millennium the area was blighted and crime-ridden thanks to years of racist, regressive policy decisions from segregation to redlining. His plan was simple but incredibly effective. He spearheaded a campaign to revitalize the area by granting a limited number of 24-hour liquor licenses to clubs like Space. Dozens of venues rose up on and around 11th Street, including vast, multi-room clubs like Metropolis, live venues like Studio A and Grand Central, and more intimate spots like Vagabond. Sporadic police raids also gave the area a druggy, dangerous reputation, inadvertently raising its allure. 

    This reoccurring arc has led some people to conclude that cities and/or areas seem to want to follow a kind of binary outcome: they’re either dying or they’re too successful. Why can’t we just have urban homeostasis? I don’t think this is necessarily always the case. Cities go through cycles just like any other market. I also know that it’s complicated. But I do feel strongly that we need to be mindful that part of what makes cities such wonderful places is that they are factories for new ideas and creativity.

    I can’t remember when or exactly how he said it, but YouTuber Casey Neistat once described New York City as an incredible island (Manhattan?) where misfits from all over the world come to do whatever the hell they want. And that part of the reason for this is that nobody cares what you do, because everyone is just so damn busy. You could certainly argue that New York isn’t what it used to be. But the lesson here remains the same: Cities are at their best when they allow humans to create, build, experiment, and express themselves.

    And oftentimes a great place for that is in a space that nobody else wants.

  • What AI thinks about missing middle housing

    I don’t know if any of you have had a chance to play with ChatGPT yet, but it is pretty incredible. Here is something that my friend David Fitzpatrick, who is a planner, tweeted out:

    https://twitter.com/_DavidFitz/status/1600886386734682112?s=20&t=nxrqQJM8AQ6unugSs7eP9w

    There is really no way of telling that AI produced this. It sounds natural and, in this particular case, it also feels like it understands that this is an ongoing debate: “the by-law may not provide enough flexibility to allow for…”

    It’s a good thing I don’t write for a living.