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

  • Happiness vs. satisfaction

    I have heard from some of you that you don’t like it when I write about crypto and NFTs. This personal blog is supposed to be largely about city building after all. So today I thought I would write about crypto and NFTs. More specifically, this podcast episode, which I watched last night.

    It’s with Marc Andreessen and Chris Dixon of the venture firm a16z, and it’s actually less about specific things like NFTs and more about the reinvention of the internet in general. Why I found it particularly interesting is that Marc co-invented the first widely-used web browser. Anyone remember Netscape?

    So he was around for what we are now calling web 1 and he is around for what we are today calling web 3. And there are lots of parallels between then and now. Similar to today with crypto, the early internet had lots of critics and lots of people who thought it was dumb and that it would never amount to much.

    Oops.

    Here are a few other thoughts and ideas from the podcast that I found interesting (some of them even relate to city building):

    • No matter how many times we have seen the same movie, humanity seems doomed to repeat the same mistakes when it comes to, among other things, embracing new ideas and innovations. I agree with Marc in that part of this is generational. Younger people are often more open to new ideas because they view it as a way for them to establish themselves and make their mark on the world. Whereas older people (established people) often view new ideas and change as a threat to their current position in the world.
    • Marc drops a number of books throughout the talk and one of them is The Mystery of Capital — Why Capitalism Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. This is a well known book by Hernando De Soto and the big idea is that property ownership and property rights are really the fundamental ingredients in our modern world. People need to know that if they hold title and invest money into something, it’s not just going to get taken away by someone. And it is this underlying legal structure that has allowed people to leverage property into wealth.
    • This is a fascinating observation in its own right, but it also relates to crypto. Hear me out. Chris Dixon makes the argument in the episode that web1 democratized information (anyone can search for stuff), and that web2 democratized publishing (anyone can share stuff through platforms like Twitter or the blogging platform I’m writing on right now). He then goes on to argue that the promise of web3 and crypto is really to democratize ownership of the internet. Anyone can buy crypto tokens.
    • Why might this be a big deal? Well if property rights in our offline world are a fundamental ingredient to modern society, it seems logical to me that property rights in our digital world(s) might also be equally transformative. And this is precisely one of the things that blockchain technologies enable for the very first time.
    • Finally, on a mostly unrelated note, I liked Marc’s comparison of happiness vs. satisfaction in life. Happiness, he explains, is like getting an ice cream cone on a hot summer day. The first and second feel great, but after that you move on. Satisfaction on the other hand is enduring. It’s the feeling you get from working on something really challenging and then finally succeeding. And that’s exactly how I feel about real estate development. There are lots of shitty days and lots of grinding. But in the end, I do feel very satisfied.

  • 50U

    There is a new book out right now about the United Arab Emirates called 50U. It has been fifty years since the confederation of the seven Gulf states was officially declared (December 2, 1971), and so the book is a celebration of that. The format is 50 portraits of people, places, and plants (yes, plants) that tell the story of the UAE.

    Included in the book is an excerpt of a 2009 talk by architect Rem Koolhaas (of OMA) about his reading of Dubai. ArchDaily published an abridged version over here and I thought it was an interesting read. Few people think about cities as deeply as Koolhaas does, and few can express their thoughts in such a rational and Dutch-like way. Here’s a snippet of the talk:

    I came here first in 2004. We were asked to do a major building on the site which is marked by the flag. Then, two years ago it was the exact moment… I became increasingly nervous about the mission of architecture and the uses of architecture. And I really became almost desperate… that the incredible pressure of the market economy was forcing architecture itself into increasingly extravagant conditions. Seemingly, Dubai seemed to be the epicenter of that extravagance. So, I came with deeply ambivalent feelings. It seemed as if the idea of the city and the metropolis itself had been almost turned into a caricature, not a coherent entity but maybe a patchwork of theme parks. And those themes would become the bogus and increasingly bizarre characters that were perhaps partly mythical and partly real.

    I’ve only been to Dubai once. It was back in 2008 or 2009. And to be honest, it wasn’t my favorite city; I think primarily because I enjoy walking cities and Dubai is largely the opposite of that. It felt like a patchwork of theme parks that you had to drive around to — ideally in an exotic car while being as flashy as possible.

    Now if these theme parks were within walking distance (and the drinks were good), that would be an entirely different story.

  • The pre-meeting is often better than most panel discussions

    When you’re preparing for a panel discussion, one of the things you usually do is have a pre-meeting with all of the participants. The purpose of this meeting is, of course, to get to know everyone and decide on what you’re going to talk about. Everything then gets buttoned up and you have the actual panel.

    But one of the things I’ve been feeling lately is that oftentimes the pre-meeting is more interesting than the actual panel. And that’s because everyone is more relaxed and everyone is engaged in a genuine discussion that hasn’t been pre-meditated. Nobody wants to hear boring and overly-scripted answers. Natural and free-flowing discussions are so much more engaging.

    So I’m going to try and keep this in mind and not put on a sucky panel next week at the land & development conference (which, by the way, will be in person). I’m moderating a panel on innovations in project design, delivery, and building operations. If you’d like to join, you can register over here.

  • Developer advertising turned cultural monument

    I don’t really have an opinion on the debate surrounding public access to Los Angeles’ famed Hollywood sign. I just don’t know enough and I’ve never visited it myself.

    On the one hand, if you live in Hollywoodland, I can see how having 10 million or so people traipse through your neighborhood each year to take photos of the sign might be a little annoying.

    On the other hand, living in a big city like Los Angeles means dealing with certain annoyances. And doesn’t everyone deserve a selfie with the sign? It also doesn’t seem to be impacting values (see above).

    What is more interesting to me is that all of this is a reminder that many/most of the neighborhoods and communities that people love today were, at one point, built be developers.

    The Hollywood sign was first erected in 1923, and originally read Hollywoodland. It was developer advertising at its finest and intended to sell new homes. The sign cost $21,000 at the time.

    Today the sign is a LA Historic-Cultural Monument and one of the city’s most recognizable icons. Isn’t it funny how this stuff works?

    Chart via the WSJ

  • Water supply and air conditioning

    This past weekend I was reminded that Phoenix is largely what it is today — the 5th biggest city in the US — because of two very important things.

    Firstly, the city had to figure out water supply.

    About 50% of the city’s water supply comes from surface and groundwater, specifically the Verde River and the Salt River watersheds that are to the north and east of the city. And about 40% comes from the Central Arizona Project, which is a 541 km diversion canal that pulls water from the Colorado River and brings it through the state (terminating in Tucson). From what I have read, the CAP canal serves about 80% of the state’s population.

    Secondly, Phoenix needed A/C.

    Air conditioning was first invented at the beginning of the 1900s, but it really didn’t become ubiquitous until the second half of the century. And not surprisingly, it made the southwest of the US far more appealing. In 1950, Phoenix had just over 100,000 people. By 1960, the city had grown by about 311% to reach nearly 440,000 people. Apparently there was more construction in 1959 alone than from 1914 to 1945 combined. Air conditioning made Phoenix’s summers bearable.

    Air conditioning is such an interesting topic because it’s one of those things that many of us take for granted. When you walk into a store or an office building in the summer, you expect it to be cool. But it hasn’t really been around all that long and its invention has, in many ways, been instrumental in defining the modern city. Even something as common and banal as a glass office tower with large floor plates would not be possible/practical without air conditioning.

    We can certainly debate how sustainable it is to urbanize and air condition desert climates like Phoenix, but there’s no denying that air conditioning has had a profound impact on our urban landscapes. Diversion canals are pretty important too.

  • Frank Lloyd Wright hated tall people

    I have been in a few of Frank Lloyd Wright’s houses and in every case it turned out like this:

    The Prairie School (of architecture), for which Wright was a pioneer, was all about horizontality. That typically meant flat roofs, deep overhangs and, in the case of Wright’s work, exceptionally low ceiling heights.

    I’m about 6’3”. Many of his clear heights were less than 7’ and I believe his doorways were often 6’2”. This clearly doesn’t work for me, but it mattered for what Wright was trying to do. And I don’t think he was the type to worry about small matters like the comfort of tall people.

    The above photos were taken at Taliesin West in Scottsdale, Arizona. Wright bought the land (495 acres) in 1937, and turned it into both his winter home and a teaching studio.

    Apparently Wright paid $3.50 per acre at the time, which feels like a pretty good deal to me. It shows you the power of just buying and holding things over long periods of time.

    Today, Taliesin West is the home base of Wright’s foundation and also a UNESCO World Heritage Site. I’m glad I was able to finally visit it after reading about it for so many years in architecture school.

  • Rotterdam Rooftop Walk

    A new brightly-colored rooftop installation opened up this week in Rotterdam. It includes a 30-meter-high aerial bridge that connects a few of the city’s rooftops. Designed by Rotterdam Rooftop Days and MVRDV, the “Rotterdam Rooftop Walk” is designed to bring awareness to the city’s rooftops and demonstrate how they might be used as an added layer of public infrastructure within the city. The installation will run from May 26 to June 24.

    This is a neat idea and not just because I like bright orange things. Rooftops are, by and large, underutilized assets within our cities. It behooves us to do more (I just wanted to say behooves). But I think it’s important to keep in mind that aerial bridges and rooftop spaces can come in many different forms. I think you could argue that there are aerial bridges designed to enliven forgotten spaces (like this example here) and there are aerial bridges designed as a solution to appalling and inhospitable ground planes.

    Sometimes these inhospitable spaces are because of extreme climates and sometimes it is because we forgot how to design spaces that are actually enjoyable for pedestrians. The former of these two scenarios is, I guess, more excusable. But I do think that many cities lack the kind of densities needed to animate multiple layers of public spaces. Often you need to pick where you want to focus people’s attention.

    Still, bright orange walkways. Neat.

  • Virtual sneakers to cutting-edge kicks

    Toronto’s Bata Shoe Museum has an exhibition on right now that is all about sneakers. It’s called Future Now: Virtual Sneakers to Cutting-Edge Kicks. I haven’t been to it yet, but it’s on the list. Because this is interesting to me for a few reasons.

    One, shoes are important and, as a general rule, I always wear them when I leave the house. Though there may have been some exceptions to this general rule.

    Two, sneakers are high fashion. Just look at everyone walking around Paris.

    And three, sneakers are such a great example of a clothing device that went from utility (we need to protect our feet) to fashion (we all have a desire to express our unique identities) to art collectible (yes, lots of people buy shoes that they never actually wear).

    So if you’re looking at stuff like NFTs and digital fashion and scratching your head as to why they have any value, sneakers are probably a good place to look to help you understand why many of us seem to have a need to collect things that help us define our sense of self.

    This is, of course, one of the reasons why Nike bought a digital shoe company.

    I suspect that the exhibition will be at least partially about this and at least partially about really cool 3D-printed shoes.

  • Design-forward vacation rentals

    What I was getting at with the above tweet is that I think there’s way more demand, for places like this and this, than there is supply. Click on the first link and you’ll see that it’s booked up all summer long. And as for the second link, I just booked one of their rentals for this summer, but I have been trying — for years — to book it in the winter.

    I think the unmet use case is as simple as this: I live in a big city, and I want to get out of the city and go somewhere cool and design-forward. There are, of course, some options. But there’s a need for a lot more. Generally speaking, it feels to me like the majority of the supply is either (1) an expensive/large cottage or (2) an old “classic luxury” kind of hotel.

    I’m specifically referring to Toronto and southern Ontario with these options, but judging by some of the responses I got to my tweet, this appears to be an opportunity in many other markets as well. But I would be curious to hear from all you in comments or on Twitter. What “local” hospitality offerings are missing in your market? Where would you like to travel to and stay, but can’t?

  • Our cities are full

    One of the most common objections to new housing is that the place is already too crowded and potentially even full. But Jerusalem Demsas’ recently article in The Atlantic about how much people seem to hate other people is a good reminder that the topic of overpopulation can be a complicated one.

    Because what are we really saying when we say a place is too crowded or full? Is it just that this particular neighborhood is full, or are we talking about entire cities being full?

    Moreover, who determines when a place is full? Berkeley, California is, for example, a hell of a lot less dense than a city like Paris. So if a place like Berkeley can be considered full by some people, what does that mean for Paris? Presumably it’s entirely unliveable.

    Or could it be that the entire world is simply full and we should be looking at more drastic measures to curb population growth (in the places that are actually reaching replacement-level fertility rates)?

    It’s all very complicated. Thankfully Demsas offers up some possible solutions in her article:

    We have, of course, discovered an elusive technology to allow more people to live on less land: It’s called an apartment building. And if people would like fewer neighbors competing for parking spaces, then they should rest assured that buses, trains, protected bike lanes, and maintained sidewalks are effective, cutting-edge inventions available to all.

    The rest of the article is just as good.