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

  • Upsizing in Hong Kong

    It is well known that Hong Kong has some of the most unaffordable housing in the world and that one response to this has been to build increasingly smaller homes — some with the moniker of “nano apartments.”

    But then earlier this year Beijing decided that these nano apartments are actually too small for people, and so a new rule was created requiring homes in Hong Kong to be no smaller than 280 square feet.

    At the same time, interest rates obviously went up, the price cap on homes that can be bought by a first-time buyer with just 10% down was increased, and people have continued to leave Hong Kong for places that are, I’m guessing, more open and less Chinese.

    The unsurprising result is that home prices are now down some 14% for the year, according to Bloomberg. But the other interesting thing about all of this is that buyers are now shifting toward larger homes:

    Developers were only able to sell 48% of the studio apartments available in the first 11 months this year, while the rate for one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments stood at 53% and 67% respectively, according to Midland Realty.

    Even with the interest rate hikes that we have seen, what seems to be happening is that people are starting to take advantage of this softer market to buy something bigger. Hong Kong is still Hong Kong, meaning grab whatever space you can find when you can.

  • 10 years of contactless payments on London’s public transport

    I was having coffee this week with a self-described luddite and, after we ordered our coffees, he surprised me by pulling out his iPhone and initiating ApplePay. Knowing him and his general views on technology, I said, “I’m surprised that you of all people are now using ApplePay.” To which he responded, “I can’t believe it took me this long to start using it. It’s so convenient! I now barely ever pull out my wallet.” Yup, it is very convenient.

    It also just so happens that this month marks the 10 year anniversary of contactless payments on London’s public transport network. This meaning payment via a bank or credit card, and not via an Oyster card. In fact, part of the reason why London did this was because bus drivers were struggling with both having to give change and having to deal with people who didn’t have enough funds on their Oyster cards.

    So Transport for London (TfL) decided to spend £11 million, design and code the entire thing in-house, and then roll it out across the network starting in 2012. Apparently, adoption started off relatively slowly. At the end of 2013, only about 6 million journeys were made using contactless payments — this is against an initial projection of 25 million. But fast forward to today, and around 70% of all bus journeys are now contactless.

    What is also interesting about this is that TfL now licenses their contactless technology to other cities around the world. Here is a £15 million deal that was announced in 2016, which suggests that they could be generating a fairly respectable return on their initial investment. But aside from this, contactless payments are an obviously good way to onboard people onto public transport. There’s no special card. No lining up at a ticket kiosk. And yes, you can even use your phone.

    Photo by Tomas Anton Escobar on Unsplash

  • Two somewhat useless housing polls

    I tweeted two polls today. The first one is mostly useless:

    It asked whether developers should build more 3-bedroom apartments/condominiums. And not surprisingly, the vast majority of people voted yes. Of course, the problem with this poll is that it says nothing about the overall affordability of these larger suites. (We’ve talked about this many times before on the blog.)

    So it is akin to asking: Should Mercedes put this concept car into production and make it widely available? My answer would obviously be yes. It’s a sweet car. I would like one. But I also don’t like spending money on depreciating “assets”, so in the end I probably wouldn’t buy it. That said, if you’re in the market for a sweet 3-bedroom condominium, I could sell you one right now.

    The second poll is this one here:

    My overly simplistic view of taxes is that it is generally good practice to tax the things you want less of — you know, things like cigarettes and pollution — and reduce taxes on the things you want more of — you know, things like housing and income.

    The irony of this poll is that the vast majority of people voted for road tolls as the way to increase municipal funding. But in practice, this is not what we do at all! We heavily tax new housing and we are extremely reticent to even accurately price the usage of roads and highways.

    Here in Toronto, I guess we kind of tried a few times, but in the end it never passes. Part of the problem, I think, is visibility. New home taxes are easy to hide from consumers. It is also easy to just vilify big bad developers. Road prices, on the other hand, are highly visible and they hit you repeatedly.

    Perhaps what we ought to do is become more transparent about the charges that are levied on all new housing. I bet most people would be surprised.

  • Uber announces micro-fulfillment robots in Miami

    These are autonomous sidewalk robots from Cartken:

    And last week, Uber announced that customers in Miami would start to see some of their food and grocery orders being delivered by them. The way it works is pretty simple. The app tells you when you need to meet your robot on the sidewalk (they apparently don’t do elevators). You open their secure compartment through your phone (or a code?). And then there’s your food! Next year, both companies intend to roll out this service across more of Miami-Dade and in other cities.

    This isn’t the first sidewalk robot in existence. I’ve seen a handful of ones here in Toronto. But if it works, this could be a pretty meaningful partnership. Uber used to do self-driving autonomy in-house, and it was always positioned as central to the company’s future. Uber ended up selling off that part of its business in 2020 in order to raise cash and because autonomy started feeling a lot more difficult than probably most people expected. But what seems clear is that automation remains an important objective for the company. And for good reason.

    I would imagine that, for some people, it’s going to feel weird seeing fleets of sidewalk robots roaming around our cities with shawarma wraps and burritos. But one of the things that services like Uber Eats have taught us is that a lot of people are willing to pay a premium for extreme convenience. So if these robots can add to that convenience and also make fulfillment a little cheaper, I suspect that people will quickly get over the weirdness.

    Supposedly on-demand shawarma is also good for communities:

    “We are excited about how this partnership with Uber will bring the advantages of robotics to food delivery—and ultimately create more connected communities,” said Christian Bersch, Co-founder and CEO at Cartken. “Together, we have the opportunity to reduce traffic congestion, help local merchants to increase delivery capacity, and bring consumers fast, convenient, and emission-free deliveries.”

  • 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.