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

  • Does off-site construction equal more compromises?

    We have been talking about prefabricated and modular buildings for so long that it’s easy to think it might never happen. (Here’s a related post that I wrote back in 2015.) There are also lots of groups that have tried and failed. Perhaps the most high profile is the bankruptcy of off-site construction company Katerra, which had raised some $2 billion in funding, but for whatever reason(s) couldn’t figure things out.

    That said, I’m starting to get the feeling that change might actually be underway in our industry. Over the last few months we’ve been talking about startups like Nabr. But there are many others, including Factory OS, which has been quietly building affordable housing in California (presumably far away from here). To date, they have completed 10 buildings and over 1,200 units, and they have another 24 or so buildings in the pipeline.

    This feels promising to me. And I think it’s being aided by our current environment — costs are way up and people are desperately searching for efficiencies. But if this is really going to transform our industry, I think we’re going to need to be willing to make some sacrifices. Standardization and efficiency likely means making some concessions around design and overall specificity. Not every project can be custom, as is generally the case today.

    That likely means that cities and communities will also need to become more forgiving when it comes to urban design guidelines. Could you please step your building back right here and follow this oblique angle that lines up with this important historic datum line? Nope, sorry, can’t. Our production line can’t accommodate that sort of change. Would you like the most affordable housing possible with today’s means or would you like a custom design?

  • What am I paying more for?

    So here’s the thing. The whole reason we are all talking about how to build more sustainably is that there isn’t often a quantifiable ROI for doing so. If building a net-zero building cost less than building a regular building, everybody would be building one. But that is not the case, which is why our industry, and others, are grappling with how to justify the added costs, even though we all know it’s absolutely the right thing to do.

    The questions we are asking ourselves look something like this: If I spend X% more on this build, what kind of rent premium could I command? And in some cases this premium is quantifiable and in some cases it matters a great deal. For instance, in the case of a new office building, you might need to spend the extra money so that you can attract the right tenants. While in other cases/asset classes, you might feel as if there’s no rent premium and nobody will ever pay more.

    But I like how Seth Godin thinks about it in this recent post: people never pay extra. If you’re paying more for an electric car, for example, you aren’t actually paying extra. What you are paying is a price that you feel is fair for what you are receiving. And what is it that you’re receiving? Well, in this case, you’re getting an electric car, but you’re also buying in Seth’s words, “sustainability, community awareness, cachet, status, safety, quiet, and the feeling of being an early adopter.”

    These things have value to some people. And as long as you can deliver on your promises, extra isn’t extra at all. But perhaps more importantly, this early adoption can help encourage change. Electric cars are becoming cheaper and cheaper, and I think it’s pretty clear that they will soon replace combustion engine vehicles. This model of starting at the top of the market and then moving down seems to have worked.

    Now, the auto industry isn’t perfectly comparable to the building industry. They have been good at improving productivity and bringing down costs, and we have been awful at it. Depending on how you measure it, construction productivity growth over the last half century is sitting somewhere between flat to some negative number. But I don’t think this dubious achievement changes Seth’s message. Think about what you’re offering. Maybe extra isn’t extra.

  • I was here first

    Connor Dougherty published this thoughtful piece about NIMBYs over the weekend in the New York Times. And it has been making the rounds online ever since.

    It is thoughtful in that Connor tries to understand what makes NIMBYs tick. And he does this by interviewing people like Susan Kirsch, a resident of Marin County, California who generally opposes all of the things that California is doing to try and address its housing shortage and who has been fighting a townhouse project in her neighborhood for the last 18 years.

    The developer, who is now 86, started the project in his 60s. In the article he is quoted saying that he’s either going to succeed or he’s going to die. It’s one or the other.

    What is clear is that we all see things differently. While some people might see new housing as serving an important need. Others see new development as running counter to environmentalism and good stewardship. Indeed, for some, there is no shortage of housing (even in cities that are growing in population). It’s simply a problem of too many investors buying and creating rental homes or too many Airbnbs or some other red herring.

    Whatever the case may be, it’s hard not to pay attention to quotes like this one:

    “From my backyard I see the hillside,” Ms. Kirsch wrote from her Hotmail account. “Explain how my property value is not deflated if open space is replace(d) with view-blocking, dense, unsightly buildings.”

    Look, we all get this. Nobody wants their views obstructed. Nobody wants more cars parked in their neighborhood. And nobody wants more dog shit in their local park, among many other things. But implicit in this statement is a view that certain people’s needs and desires are more important than those of others. I was here first. Too bad for you.

  • Augmented reality is coming — will it finally reach construction sites?

    Apple has been working on new virtual reality and/or augmented reality headsets for at least 6 years. This has been widely reported. But in typical Apple fashion, nobody knows anything about them, even though something is set to be revealed as early as this fall. I also don’t know anything about them, but I already want one. I am sure Tim Cook will get up on stage at some point and convince me that I need it immediately, so I’m trying to get ahead of that moment.

    VR/AR headsets are, of course, not new. Google tried and failed. Nobody wanted to wear them besides nerds. I had a pair of Focals by North but they were far too cumbersome to use and about as comfortable as having a smartphone duct-taped to your face. Meta’s headsets currently control the market. They have about 78% market share. But the overall market remains small. It’s mostly gamers. But the same could have been said about tablets before Apple did its thing.

    The promise is that these AR headsets might replace our phones as the dominant personal device. AR > VR. And that feels to me like a reasonable assumption once the requisite tech arrives. But even before that, there are a ton of great use cases for highly-functioning AR — everything from online shopping and digital fashion to finally fulfilling the dream of walking around a construction site and visualizing the design and coordination clashes.

    Technically these things are already possible, but the technology remains fairly niche. I hope Apple changes that.

    Full disclosure: I am long Apple.

  • Centralizing in cities

    This is not all that surprising:

    It is not surprising for at least two reasons:

    • We knew that central banks would tighten the money supply at some point and that it would have a negative impact on asset prices.
    • Many of us believed that a lot of people were making a somewhat long-term decision (flee the city) because of something that would ultimately prove to be short-term dislocation (a ~2 year health crisis).

    So one of the things I think you can glean from Daniel’s tweet is that our best urban centers are resilient. Notwithstanding the fact that we have things like Zoom and previous pandemic-suffering generations did not, the core value propositions associated with centralizing in cities hasn’t gone away.

  • Practicing what I preach

    In yesterday’s post I wrote about happiness vs. satisfaction (among a bunch of other things). And I mentioned that I derive deep satisfaction from the work that I do, which is real estate development. On the back of this post, I received a question from a reader this morning that more or less asked me if I think about the impact of my work on other people’s happiness / satisfaction. Part of the point that was being made was that while it may be a positive endeavor for me, I may be completely destroying the satisfaction, happiness, and lives of others. Do I give this any thought? Lastly, a point was made that very few developers seem to live in their own housing projects, which should tell you something.

    I thought these were all very good points/questions and so I’d like to respond to them publicly:

    • I do think carefully about the happiness and satisfaction of others. In fact, part of the reason this work is satisfying is that, in my opinion, it is both challenging and important work. Growing cities require new housing and the reality is that almost all of this housing comes from private developers.
    • This may sound cheesy, but I also care deeply about beauty. This is something that is of course in the eye of the beholder. But I do want things to be beautiful. I want our cities to be more beautiful. And I don’t think we talk about this enough. I mean, just look at the garbage bins we have in Toronto.
    • Some people may not like or appreciate the form that development usually takes in cities such as Toronto, but the housing needs to go somewhere. As a result of restricting development in most areas of the city, we are now forced to highly concentrate development in relatively few areas. Many are reacting to this.
    • There will almost certainly be tensions between incumbents and new entrants when it comes to city building. That’s part of what makes this work so challenging and rewarding. Everyone involved in the building of our cities has to constantly problem solve and manage competing interests. It’s not easy.
    • I am in fact moving into one of our projects (Junction House). I am doing this because (1) I think our team is creating an awesome and beautiful project and (2) I believe that living in multi-family buildings in walkable neighborhoods is a more sustainable (and enjoyable) way to live. I want to practice what I preach.

  • 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