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

  • The Eiffel Tower and the awful tower

    It was explained to me this week that Paris has two principal towers: The Eiffel Tower and the awful tower. The awful tower is, of course, the Tour Montparnasse. Completed in 1973, the Tour Montparnasse is tall, brown, monolithic, and seemingly out of place with the rest of Paris’ urban context. At the time of its completion it was the tallest building in Paris and it remains the tallest building outside of La Defense (business district).

    But the Eiffel Tower is also tall. In fact, it’s taller. So how is it that the Eiffel Tower became such a symbol for Paris and the Tour Montparnasse became the “awful tower?” Both were intended to represent modernity (at their respective times) and both were controversial at the time of their construction.

    Today people respond to these two towers very differently. Is it because the Eiffel Tower is set in a beautiful park and more separated from its urban context? Or is it because the Eiffel Tower has had almost another 100 years to settle in. It’s not exactly clear. But we do know that as humans we have a bias toward the status quo. And so I like to think of change in the following way:

    – There’s change that people immediately like

    – There’s change that people hate and will always hate

    – And there’s change that people initially hate but will eventually like

    The Eiffel Tower, you could argue, falls into category number three. It was big, modern, and alarmingly different when it was built at the end of the 19th century. But now people seem to like it. I know this based on the number of street vendors selling little replicas. For the record, I have yet to see little replicas of the Tour Montparnasse sitting on blankets on the street. I’m a buyer if I do come across one though.

    But is it really right to place Montparnasse into category number two? Could it be that it just needs more time to settle in and then it will ultimately move into number three? Maybe. In 2017, an international design competition was held to find an architect for the redesign of the tower. Studio Gang submitted an entry. But Nouvelle AOM was ultimately selected.

    I wasn’t part of the selections committee, but I think a good way to evaluate the success of this project will be whether or not it moves the tower into category three. That is, people start to like it. Then maybe Paris will become known as a city of two towers, as opposed to a city with one nice one and one awful one.

  • Les banlieues of Paris

    One of the things that I notice about people from Paris is that they’re always very clear on whether they live in Paris or outside of Paris in the banlieues (the suburbs). They’ll say things like, “No I don’t live in Paris. It’s too expensive. I live in such and such a place in the banlieues.”

    I suppose this isn’t entirely different than saying you don’t live in New York, you live on Long Island, or you don’t live in Toronto, you live in Burlington. Except that there seems to be a greater sense of division when they say it here in Paris (although it’s entirely possible that it could be my rusty French that is leading me to believe this).

    There is a sense that you’re either inside the Boulevard Périphérique, or you’re really not. And this seems like a shame. Cities regions care less about administrative borders and more about the movement of people, ideas, and goods.

    And as much as I love Paris (the central part), it is, from what I can tell, far more static than some of its surrounding areas in terms of new people (immigration), new buildings, and probably new ideas.

    Paris can sometimes feel like a perfectly curated museum. It’s beautiful and precious and should not be touched — please stand behind the ropes mesdames et messieurs. But perhaps it’s time to equally celebrate les banlieues and recognize what they have to offer.

  • 1912 Michelin Guide to France

    This is a copy of the 1912 edition of the Michelin Guide to France. Most of you have probably heard of Michelin star restaurants, but some of you may not be familiar with how it all started.

    First published in 1904, the Michelin Guide is, as you might suspect, a product of French tire company Michelin. And since the beginning, this free guide has had a pretty clear objective: Its goal was to get you to drive more.

    At the turn of the 20th century, there were only a few thousand cars on the road in France. This guide tried to change that by giving you places to go, as well as telling you where to stop along the way should you need to change a tire or two.

    However, its famous starred ranking system for restaurants was not introduced until 1931, and the criteria for said ranking was not revealed until a few years later:

    • One Star: “A very good restaurant in its category” (Une très bonne table dans sa catégorie)
    • Two Stars: “Excellent cooking, worth a detour” (Table excellente, mérite un détour)
    • Three Stars: “Exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey” (Une des meilleures tables, vaut le voyage)

    Curiously enough, Canada has no Michelin star restaurants. I’m not exactly sure why, but I have heard that it’s because we’re not giving money to the right people. Maybe that’s wrong. I don’t know.

    I do, however, find it interesting that this celebrated restaurant ranking system started as a marketing tool for motorists. Oftentimes you never know where a new idea might lead you.

    P.S. I’m also not sure how the above 1912 copy is the 13th edition when the first Michelin Guide was supposedly published in 1904.

  • Shoes follow built form

    I have remarked this before, but I’ll say it again anyways: sneakers are very popular in Paris. Everybody seems to be wearing cool and colorful sneakers, regardless of what the rest of their outfit happens to look like.

    Full business suit? Why yes, you should be wearing cool sneakers.

    But why is that?

    Paris is a famously walkable city. At any given time, you’re on average just about 500m from the closest subway station. So my entirely unproven sneaker theory is this: shoes follow built form.

    If you build a city around people walking everywhere, one will ultimately choose the most appropriate kind of footwear.

    Photo: Rosa Bonheur sur Seine

  • Floor numbering conventions

    One of the things that is common in Europe is that building floors often start with zero for the ground floor and then go both up and down from there.

    This is different than most of North America where the ground floor is usually floor number 1 (regardless of what it might be called) and then the floors go up from there.

    Using the pictured example (above), the key difference is that, with the ground floor as zero, you end up with the above-grade floors being off by 1 and the top floor being 6 instead of 7.

    There is a certain rationality to the European approach that I like, but I am curious how suites on ground floors get typically numbered. I will seek this out and report back.

    At Junction House, our ground floor residences follow 101, 102, 103, etc. Following the exact same logic, the European equivalent would be 001, 002, 003, etc. This, admittedly, feels a bit odd.

    Which floor convention do you find more intuitive?

    Either way, I’m thinking about adopting the European approach for no other reason than that height is a sensitive topic in the world of development, so one less “headline” floor could be helpful. (Half-joking)

  • The compactness of Paris

    https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1519473551073583110?s=21&t=rwg2h9qw8_jiyrNjDxkSxQ

    This is a great diagram from Smart Density comparing the urban and regional rail networks of Toronto, London, and Paris. All are at the same scale.

    What immediately stands out to me — besides Toronto’s relatively miniscule network — is Paris’ compactness. I have said this before on the blog (here, here, and here), but I will say it again: There seems to be a tendency to fetishize the scale and height of Paris.

    But building height is only one component of its ubiquitous built form. Unlike Toronto, we’re not talking about midrises built up against single-family homes. Paris is far more dense and its buildings are far closer together (usually with interior courtyards)

    Are we also okay with these attributes?

  • Vancouver proposes empty stores tax

    When you buy commercial real estate, you are buying a stream of future cash flows. Sometimes these cash flows are already in place and sometimes these cash flows are based on future expectations. Either way, as a general rule, it is better to have more rather than less rent.

    But there are some short-term exceptions to this rule. If there is a higher and better use for your property and you’re planning to redevelop it, you probably don’t want to encumber the asset with any leases. Certainly not with any long-term leases. So vacant is likely better.

    Another possible short-term scenario might be that the market has moved and you’re no longer able to command the same rents. But instead of adjusting your expectations, which would negatively and immediately impact the value of your asset, you decide to hold out in the hopes that the market will return.

    Yet another more dire scenario could be that the market has moved entirely and you’re no longer able to find tenants at any price. But this isn’t a choice and so I wouldn’t consider it an exception to our more-rent-is-better rule. This is a systemic kind of problem.

    I am going to assume that for Vancouver to propose an empty stores tax the belief is that scenario two, or some permutation of it, is what is playing out on retail streets. It’s not that the tenants aren’t out there (because of changes in the retail landscape), it’s that landlords are greedy and want too much money.

    But my view is that this proposal ignores (at least) two things.

    One, you can’t punish and tax your way to vibrant urban streets, particularly if something structural is going on in the market. If this were the case, the way to revive a declining post-industrial city would just be to tax any vacant buildings.

    And two, the fundamental value of commercial real estate is, again, determined by rents. So sooner or later the rule of more rent being better than less rent will take hold. Vacancies are not in anyone’s best interest.

  • Tokenized real estate and public databases

    One of the ways that you can turn a traditional real estate company into more of a web3 company is talk about how you’re going to tokenize the ownership of real assets. But what does that even mean and how would it work?

    Here is one example that I recently discovered (but of course there are countless others and I’m not suggesting that you should use their product). Bricknest is a startup that is focused on buying vacation apartments in popular tourist destinations. They then split the ownership into 365 non-fungible tokens that live on the Solana blockchain.

    Each token is intended to correspond to a day. And so if you own 1 token, you own 1/365 of the asset and you get 1 day. You can choose to either use it yourself on this day, or rent it out and get the rental income sent directly to your crypto wallet. If you own all 365 tokens, then it would be similar to you just owning 100% of the asset.

    The obvious question is how is this different from, say, fractional ownership, which can be similarly found in high-demand vacation spots? And the dumb answer is that, well, tokens exist on a blockchain and fractional ownership shares do not. So I guess the real question is whether or not tokens will make this ownership model any different.

    There is a long history of trying to democratize the ownership of real estate. In fact, this was the general idea behind REITs when they were created in the 1960s. So again, we are back to the question of whether tokenization will be any different from what we already have.

    But I think that most people are asking this same question of crypto/web3 in general — why does all of this matter? And a big part of the problem is that crypto is generally hard to explain. One of the best explanations that I have come across is this one here by Albert Wenger.

    Simply put, most internet companies today can be thought of as large privately controlled databases. Instagram, for example, is a database of all of our photos (among other things). But because it’s Instagram’s database, they get to decide what can be done with it. And naturally they are going to do what it takes to maintain their economic moat.

    Blockchains are similarly databases. And right now they’re not particularly good databases. However, the key differences are that (1) they are public, (2) they are not controlled by a single entity, and (3) anyone can read and/or write to them. And so they directly attack the thing that gives many companies today their economic advantage.

    Does this mean that tokenized real estate is the future? Does it make a difference that rental contracts can be programmed into the blockchain so that distributions are automatic? It still feels too early to tell. But I do think that most people are underestimating how disruptive a seemingly small change like this might be.

  • What Seattle learned from its electric scooter pilot program

    Electric scooters are an unsanctioned form of mobility here in Toronto, mostly because people think they’re dangerous, but also because I think people are worried about them cluttering up our sidewalks.

    The problem with this position is that electric scooters are also a lot of fun to ride and people seem to find them useful. The last time I rode one was in Paris and it seemed perfectly safe to me, though it may have been because there were two of us on it and we were kind of overloading the thing.

    In any event, lots of cities either have them or are piloting them. Seattle just finished year one of its pilot program and here’s what they learned:

    • From September 2020 to October 2021, Seattle saw 1.4 million trips taken by over 260,000 riders
    • Electric scooter ridership greatly exceeded that of public bicycles, with 300,000 scooter trips taken in September alone, compared to about 35,000 bike trips
    • 54% of surveyed scooter riders said that they would have taken a taxi or driven their personal vehicle had a scooter not been available
    • 21% of riders said that they used it to connect to public transit (helping to solve that pesky last-mile problem)
    • 17 collisions involving a scooter and a car were reported during the pilot year (though, for what it’s worth, some/many of the incidents involved a scooter that was privately owned and not part of the actual pilot program)

    As much as I love riding a bike, it’s a bit more of a commitment compared to riding an e-scooter, which is why I think the numbers look the way that they do here. Not everybody wants to bring a change of clothes and shower at the office.

    So I think it’s really too bad that Toronto just shut these down before exploring ways to make them both safe and useful.

  • Same height parties

    This isn’t new. And it’s maybe a bit random. But we’re probably overdue for a break from housing debate. So here is an interesting art project by Hans Hemmert (who is part of the German collective Inges Idee).

    Called Personal Absurdities (1997), the project consisted of parties in Berlin in which everyone was equalized to the same height — 2 meters to be exact. The was done through blue stryofoam platform shoes ranging from 5 to 43cm in height.

    Of course, if you already happened to be 2m tall, then no platforms were needed. If you were over 2m tall, I’m not sure how that was handled, but presumably the bouncer stopped you at the front door.

    All of this seems interesting to me because most of us probably don’t fully appreciate the extent in which height impacts social dynamics. There are countless studies suggesting that we tend to have a more positive reaction to people who are tall — and this is in everything from business to who we vote for.

    In fact, this connection between height and leadership is so strong that studies have found that, when faced with a strong likeable leader, we often overstate their height in our minds. We think they’re taller than they actually are because of how strongly we associate height with the ability to lead.

    So what happens when you strip away this dynamic and you equalize everyone’s height — even if just for one night of revelry? I would be curious to find out. So if any of you are planning a “same height party”, please feel free to invite me. Thanks.

    Photo: Inges Idee