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

  • Toronto is missing out on one of the biggest economic development opportunities right now

    Wired published a great article last week talking about “the 10,000 faces that launched an NFT revolution.” What they are of course talking about are the CryptoPunk NFTs that I think most people would agree are one of the “OGs” of NFT art. Initially minted in 2017, they are usually credited with starting the NFT craze that we are all living through today. CryptoPunk #7523, for example, sold for $11.75 million. I think this is the most expensive CryptoPunk in the world. Either way, it is one of the most expensive NFTs out there.

    But as I was reading through the article I was reminded of something. Toronto is doing an awful job celebrating the fact that an immense out of crypto innovation has and continues to come out of Toronto. CryptoPunks, which is Larva Labs, was started by two guys from Toronto who met at the University of Toronto. I know that it is still early days for crypto and web3, but why are we not telling this story to the rest of the world and using it to continue to attract the smartest and most ambitious people to our great city?

    This is a missed economic development opportunity. And the door won’t be open forever. If any of our city leaders are reading this post (which is unlikely), I would encourage you to give this some serious thought and take action.

    On a related note, the above article is great evidence for Chris Dixon’s argument that, “what the smartest people do on the weekend is what everyone else will do during the week in ten years.” Larva Labs was started by two software developers who worked during the day and used their evenings and weekends for new passion projects. CryptoPunks wasn’t their first initiative, but it has obviously come to define them. Smart people need room to play and experiment. Often that happens after hours.

  • The future of parking is a lot less of it — at least here in Toronto

    I was having a conversation this week with a few friends in the industry about the future of parking. We were specifically talking about Toronto, but I would imagine that much of this holds true for many other cities around the world.

    Here in Toronto, it’s not uncommon to see new parking spaces in central locations selling for upwards of $200k. For those that are not in the industry and not seeing the work and immense costs that go into building parking, this often comes as a surprise.

    But as I have said many times before on the blog, parking is often a significant loss leader for new developments. Even at relatively high prices, most developers aren’t covering their costs. So developers naturally aren’t racing out to build more of it. They’re trying to build just what is absolutely necessary for the market.

    Given the strong incentives to build less parking, it’s no surprise that parking ratios continue to decline. But consider some of the other parking headwinds:

    • Parking minimums are (hopefully) set to be removed
    • Push toward watertight undergrounds across the city (higher costs)
    • Tipping fees for disposing of contaminated soil (higher costs)
    • Increasing development charges / levies (higher costs)
    • Introduction of inclusionary zoning (higher costs)
    • Inflationary construction cost environment (again, higher costs)

    There is a lag between changing cost structures and what the end consumer sees and feels. Junction House, for example, is fully tendered from a construction standpoint and so we are building with a kind of historic cost structure that would be impossible to replicate today. When the next project comes around, they’ll have higher costs and will have to price their homes accordingly.

    As rising costs and new policies (like the ones I mention above) begin to work their way through the system, I think it’s fairly obvious that parking ratios will continue to be one of the first things that gets looked at and ultimately chopped down. This will make parking even more scarce in the city and surely far more expensive.

    (Back in 2018, Hong Kong had the record for the most expensive parking spot in the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if it still holds this title.)

    But as I have argued before, I am of the opinion that building around the car is not the way to build big and well-functioning global cities. Many of us recognize that we need to focus on alternative forms of transport — everything from public transit to new micro-mobility solutions. And given where costs are going, I don’t think we’ll have much choice.

    Photo by Sven Mieke on Unsplash

  • San Francisco’s “Monster on Sixth Street” rejected by Board of Supervisors

    So, this seems dumb.

    San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors recently voted 8-3 in favor of rejecting a new 495-unit residential project at 469 Stevenson Street in SoMa. The property is currently a parking lot used by Nordstrom.

    Of the project’s 495 units, 73 were to be offered at affordable rents (about 14% of the project). In addition, the developer was prepared to donate a nearby parcel for additional off-site affordable housing. This would have brought the total count up to 118 units (or about 1/4 of the project).

    Apparently gentrification was a serious concern with this project:

    “It’s very clear to me that this will have a very significant displacement and social-economic impact on the Sixth Street corridor, on the Filipino community, and the broader low-income community here,” said District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton.

    The mayor seems to get it though:

    “This project met all the criteria for approval, and it would have created 500 new homes on what is currently a parking lot surrounded by tall buildings, located near transit,” Breed told the Chronicle. “We can’t keep rejecting new housing and then wondering why rents keep rising.”

  • Workplace occupancy-sensor company raises $125 million funding round

    Density, which is a company that provides occupancy-tracking sensors, announced this week that it has just completed a $125 million funding round at a ~$1 billion valuation. This is their Series D. Official announcements, here and here.

    On a practical level, the company provides workplace space analytics. They offer sensors that allow companies to anonymously measure how people are using their offices.

    How long people are at their desks for (possibly weird), which conference rooms are most used, where people socialize, and so on. With the idea being that if you measure it, you can then optimize it. It’s about how to best use your real estate.

    But their overarching mission is “to measure and improve out footprint on the world.” Their ambitions seem to go beyond just office space. It’s about how we occupy our cities, and using analytics to more efficiently design and build them going forward. And that’s pretty interesting.

    I’m not intimately familiar with the company, but I thought I would share the news with all of you in case you’d also like to check them out.

  • Building on rooftops in New York City is really tough

    Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is a pretty wealthy guy and so it is fairly safe to assume that he could choose to live almost anywhere. For some people the ideal might be a low-rise house with a backyard in the suburbs.

    But since 2018, Ackman has chosen a kind of penthouse apartment on the roof of a 1920’s co-op building in Manhattan’s Upper West Side. It was formerly the home of author Nancy Friday and Ackman supposedly purchased it for $22.5 million.

    He is now looking to demolish the penthouse and build a new two-storey residence designed by architect Norman Foster. The design looks like this, which kind of reminds me of Philip Johnson’s The Glass House:

    Today it was in the news that Ackman has been having a fun time trying to convince his co-op board that a new set of glass boxes on the roof their building is a good idea. FT reported that the project has created “an atmosphere of fear and distrust among residents in the building.”

    I’m not exactly sure what it is about this proposal that is causing fear and distrust but Ackman is on record saying that he thinks this isn’t about heritage preservation or architectural integrity; it’s about people not wanting the disruption that comes along with construction. Fair.

    One way to test this, I suppose, is to propose something more traditional or similar to what’s already there. But I suspect that the other dynamic at play here is simply that he is a rich guy with a starchitect trying to build something cool.

    Building things is tough.

  • Hong Kong needs bigger apartments

    CityLab recently published this article about “why Hong Kong is building apartments the size of parking spaces.” It’s about the city’s “microflats” which are typically in the range of 150 to 300 square feet. Supposedly there about 8,500 of these apartments across Hong Kong and in 2019 (this was apparently peak microflat) they represented about 7% of all new residential construction.

    Hong Kong is one of the densest and most supply constrained real estate markets on the planet. And so there are very good reasons for these affordability pressures and the push toward smaller apartments. The article gets into a number of them. The concern I have is that the article also seems to blame developers for a number of these problems, without a clear understanding of the economics behind new construction.

    It is not enough to simply say that developers need to be less greedy and build bigger apartments. If a 250 sf apartment currently costs $1 million and you think it should be twice as big, then the price is now also going to be somewhere around twice as big. Is the answer more $2 million apartments? Developers trade in space and more space costs more money to build.

    All of this is not to say that housing affordability isn’t a problem worth addressing. It of course is. I am simply saying that there is a cost structure behind every new development that is driving decision making and driving what ultimately gets built. Understanding it can be helpful when looking for solutions. Believe it or not, not all developers are bad. Some actually want to help build beautiful, sustainable, and prosperous cities.

  • Toronto to eliminate parking minimums

    https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1457700400417619975?s=20

    For the last year or so the City of Toronto has been doing a review of parking requirements for new developments. This would include things like how much car and bike parking needs to be provided for each residential unit in a new building. More information on this work can be found here.

    City staff are now preparing to release their initial findings and, as I understand it, it is going to include the removal of most minimum parking standards across the city and the introduction of some maximum parking standards. What this should mean is that in most cases you can build as little parking as you want, but in some cases you’ll be stopped from building too much of it.

    There are lots of examples of other cities doing this. Buffalo is one example and I recently wrote (over here) about what happened to new developments once its minimums were eliminated. Among other things, it revealed where the previous parking requirements were overshooting what the market was actually demanding.

    Urban parking is heavily dilutive to new developments. It drives up the cost of new housing. It is also hypocritical to claim that we want to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating that we build a certain amount of car parking. Do we want people to drive or do we want people to do other things? Which is it?

    Some will bemoan this inevitable loss of parking (though it was already happening). But I think this is a great thing. It is Toronto growing up and continuing to realize that it’s pretty damn hard to build a big and well-functioning global city if everyone is driving around everywhere. Maybe one day we’ll even allow e-scooters.

  • The great reopening: Planet Fitness vs. Peloton

    I came across this chart in Charlie Bilello’s latest newsletter. It was under the heading “the great reopening in 2 charts.” The other chart was live nation (so concerts) vs. zoom. Both are showing returns over the last year. And both are showing a similar divergence between in-person and online activities.

    Now, I’m not a Peloton guy.

    But I know many people who swear (or swore) by them. Maybe it’s because I’ve never been a class guy. I prefer to self direct myself at the gym and I like doing lots of different things. So I have a hard time believing that connected at-home gym equipment can completely supplant traditional gyms. There’s also a social aspect to in-person workouts that I think a lot of people value. I personally find it more motivating to be working out around others.

    But this wasn’t the narrative last year. We were all going to move to the country, zoom into our meetings, and then switch to another sitting device and another screen so that we could connect with our trainers. For me, this chart is yet another reminder that 1) cities are resilient and 2) there are always opportunities in the midst of short-term market dislocations.

  • Largest US cities grew faster and became more diverse over the last decade

    The last decade has been pretty good for many cities. Recent 2020 Census data tells us that of the 50 largest cities in the US, 46 of them grew their population over the last 10 years. On average, these 50 cities grew by about 8.5%, compared to 5.6% for the decade between 2000-2010.

    As you might expect, the fastest growing cities tended to be in the south and the west. The top 3 fastest growing cities over the last decade were Fort Worth (24%), Austin (21.7%), and Seattle (21.1%). The cities with the biggest population declines were Detroit (-10.5%), Baltimore (-5.7%), Milwaukee (-3%).

    It’s important to keep in mind that city boundaries can skew these numbers depending on how they are drawn. A declining “city” population doesn’t necessarily mean that the broader urban area is losing people. Though it does still tell you something about the “city.”

    Another thing that happened over the last decade is that most of the largest US cities continued to become more diverse. In 2000, white populations were a majority (>50%) in 25 of the 50 largest cities. This dropped to 17 cities in 2010 and then 14 cities last year (2020). Meaning that 36 of the largest cities are now “white minority” cities.

    For more data check out this recent article from Brookings.

  • Weather test in Ireland

    A few of us are in Ireland right now visiting with the suppliers who will be providing the windows, sliding doors, louvers, and glass for One Delisle. Thank you for the hospitality Flynn, Duggan Systems, and Carey Glass.

    Below is a video showing a weather test that was done this morning. If any of you have been to the One Delisle Sales Gallery, you will probably recognize these sliding doors. They are fantastic.

    https://videopress.com/v/MSqkI5vJ?resizeToParent=true&cover=true&preloadContent=metadata

    Many of us probably don’t think about the supply chain that exists behind the products and services that we consume. But it is there and there are lots of smart people working “behind the scenes” to make everything happen.

    FYI, the doors passed.