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.

  • Is entrepreneurship contagious? (And a bull case for urban clustering)

    The research isn’t absolutely conclusive, but Matt Clancy — who is an assistant teaching professor of economics at Iowa State — makes an interesting case (over here) about entrepreneurship being mostly contagious.

    The article cites a long list of studies that have more or less found that being around entrepreneurs can have a measurable positive effect on whether you yourself might also become one.

    There is evidence to suggest that this is true whether you’re a scientist working with someone who has previously commercialized a piece of research, a community with entrepreneurial neighbors, a student with an entrepreneurial mentor, or a child with parents who have started their own business(es).

    According to one Swedish study, the children of entrepreneurs are about 12 percentage points more likely to start a business at some point in their life compared to people with non-entrepreneur parents.

    But as I said at the beginning of this post, the research isn’t entirely conclusive. Could a proclivity for risk and independence be instead genetic? Could it be that entrepreneur types simply seek out other entrepreneurs to hang out with? Perhaps these associations aren’t causal. Maybe.

    But my gut tells me that there has got to be some contagiousness. Here’s an excerpt from Matt’s article:

    …being around someone who has done it plants the seed in your mind that it’s a possibility, something you really could do. For most of the studies, the population exposed to entrepreneurship is a population that wouldn’t normally consider it. For them, exposure has a measurable positive effect.

    What this once again tells me is that there’s immeasurable value in people clustering in cities, local communities, offices, coffee shops, and many other spaces. It’s a hard (probably impossible) thing to replace. And it could be the difference between taking initiative and starting a business, and not doing that.

  • Voting now open for BILD’s People’s Choice Award

    Today’s post is going to be a self-serving one.

    Some of you might remember that back in June I wrote about One Delisle being a finalist for four 2021 BILD Awards. One of them was the People’s Choice Award, where I also mentioned that voting would open in August. Well, it is now August (yes, already) and voting is open. If you’d like to cast a vote, you can do that over here. (No login necessary.) There are some wonderful projects on this top 10 list. But in my entirely biased opinion, One Delisle is the project for you.

  • Construction is right-skewed and fat tailed

    My friend Christopher Bibby sent me this article over the weekend. It’s by Brian Potter — who writes an excellent newsletter on Substack about construction things — and it’s about why it’s so hard to innovate in construction.

    To explain this, he starts by showing that the distribution of cost outcomes in construction projects tend to be both skewed toward the right and “fat tailed.”

    What does this mean? It means that construction projects have a tendency to run over a budget. And that they are much more likely to be over budget than under budget (right-skewed distribution). According to some data from the US Navy, the difference in likelihood is 10x.

    At the same time, there are also instances where projects don’t just run over budget, they run really over budget (fat tail). All of this is different from your normal distribution where you have a symmetrical curve and thin tails. I guess construction isn’t normal.

    One of the reasons for this abnormal distribution is the fact that construction suffers from what Brian calls “cascading failures.” This is kind of intuitive, but it is everything in construction: In order to complete Y, you need to complete X. If X is delayed, then everything is delayed.

    Because of these dynamics, changes to the construction process are perceived as incredibly risky. This has created a bias toward incremental rather than fundamental innovations.

    For the full article, click here. It’s worth a read.

  • Districts versus spines

    I was recently having a discussion on Twitter about midrise buildings and architect Dermot Sweeny raised the important distinction between creating “spines” and creating “districts.”

    What he was referring to with “spines” was the way in which Toronto is intensifying its “Avenues” with midrise buildings. It is a kind of linear form of intensification which almost always means that each building must transition in some way to the low-rise housing that typically abuts our Avenues. This is far less relevant in districts.

    We have started to increase housing supply in our “Neighborhoods” through things like laneway houses and garden suites, but in most cases, we are arguably not creating urban districts.

    This is of course a touchy subject. But I think it’s an important discussion to be having for a number reasons:

    • Increasing housing supply is a good thing
    • Angular planes and other transition measures make housing more expensive
    • Urban places are, I would argue, better defined through districts rather than spines
    • Mixed-use (employment) becomes more viable with districts
    • Transit infrastructure is better utilized with radial density around its stations

    Can you think of any others?

    Photo: Old Montrêal (Shot on iPhone)

  • Façadism in Montréal

    These are photos from the terrace of a restaurant in Old Montreal called Boris Bistro. It’s not new — it’s been around since 1999 — but that doesn’t change the fact that its outdoor space is absolutely magical.

    The terrace sits behind an old stone facade on McGill Street that is held up with a three-storey steel structure. Hello façadism! I have tried to figure out the vintage of the original building through a cursory look online, but I came up with nothing. (Drop it in comment section below if you happen to know.)

    What we were told at the restaurant was that the original building burnt down, leaving just the facade and then an open space behind it. The size of the trees on the terrace do suggest that it’s been this way for a long time.

    There’s an office building beside it that looks to be of a 90s vintage (465 McGill Street) and this open space was apparently a place for office workers to go smoke. But now the ground floor of the office building and the terrace function as one large contiguous space.

    The result is what you see above. Magic.

    Montréal has been city building for a lot longer than Toronto. Some 400 years depending on how you calculate it. This history has created one of the most beautiful built environments anywhere in the world.

  • Unnecessarily confusing communication from the CDC

    I saw a headline yesterday that the CDC was now reporting that vaccinated people can spread COVID just as easily as unvaccinated people. I then thought to myself, “this is not a good headline if you’re trying to encourage people to get vaccinated.”

    What I guess this is saying is that vaccinated people who end up contracting COVID (“breakthrough” cases) have similar viral loads to people who are unvaccinated. So it makes sense that they would then be able to transmit the virus to others.

    But the more important point remains that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus to others because they are less likely to actually get it in the first place.

    Yes, the vaccines are not 100% effective. But supposedly the latest hospital data suggests that vaccines remain 87% effective at preventing hospitalization. This, of course, means that some vaccinated people will still get sick and that, yes, they might transmit it to others.

    But for the vast majority of people that shouldn’t be the case.

    Update: My point is that clear and consistent messaging is important.

  • Province reveals vision for new Ontario Place

    Plans to redevelop Ontario Place (here in Toronto) have been in the works for many years, even before it closed in 2012. Supposedly it was losing over $20 million a year at that time. It had obviously lost its relevance.

    Back in 2010 (or thereabouts) I was actually part of a team that responded to an RFP to redevelop the waterfront lands. In fact, I was the human who physically submitted the proposal. I was still patiently waiting to hear back about whether or not we were selected, but based on today’s news I’m going to assume we didn’t get it.

    This morning, the Ontario government announced the following vision (architecture by Diamond Schmitt):

    The team also includes Austrian resort developer Therme, Quebec-based recreation firm Écorécréo, and US-based concert company Live Nation. The proposal itself includes a new outdoor “adventure park”, an indoor spa and waterpark, and a year-round concert venue. Premier Ford has also made it clear that there will be no casino, no residential, and that none of the land will be sold to the private sector.

    That’s essentially all I know about the proposal.

    Water features, palm trees, and a new beach all sound great to me. I just hope that (1) something actually happens and that (2) it is truly remarkable.

  • First ever virtual shoe try-on activation

    Earlier this month Snapchat announced the acquisition of Vertebrae, which is a 50-person company that allows brands to create and manage 3D versions of their products. Why does this potentially matter? Because Snapchat is already doing stuff like this:

    (If you can’t see the embedded video, click here.)

    This was a recent partnership with Gucci that Snapchat is calling the first ever “virtual shoe try-on activation.” The way it worked for the nearly 19 million people that it reached was pretty simple. Point the Snapchat camera at your feet. Try on a bunch of new Gucci shoes. Buy by tapping “shop now.”

    As we all consider what it will mean to go shopping in the future — and what kind of real estate will be most valuable — this kind of innovation strikes me as being a very big deal.

  • Cost of the Olympic Games, 1960-2021

    There are many reasons why one might want to host the Olympics. Brand building is certainly one. Making some kind of profit is another. But the direct economic benefits aren’t always clear. Embedded above are two recent charts from the WSJ outlining 1) the cost of the Olympic Games over the years (the exact numbers are likely debatable) and 2) some of the overruns that host cities have seen. Montreal stands out as an unfortunate outlier with cost overruns exceeding 700%. And Tokyo stands out as being the most expensive games ever. As I understand it, the economics are challenging in the best of times. So one can only imagine what kind of dent the Tokyo Olympics might leave behind.

  • The numerical impacts of inclusionary zoning

    Our cost consultant, Finnegan Marshall, gave our team a presentation today on what’s happening with construction costs in Toronto and across Canada. I’ve said this before, but hard costs are no joke right now.

    One of the areas that they focused on was the impact that inclusionary zoning is likely to have on development economics here in Toronto. To illustrate the point, a sample high-rise condominium pro forma was used. Think something in the 30-35 storey range.

    Assuming a requirement of 10% affordable (the policy details are still TBD), there is going to be a real cost to development pro formas that will need to be somehow paid for.

    One school of thought is that land prices will simply adjust downward. In this case, the landowner would be the one paying. I don’t think this will be the case (land prices tend to be sticky), but if they were to adjust downward, it would need to drop by $44 per square foot buildable to maintain the project’s margins in this example. (That’s $13.2 million on a 300,000 sf project.)

    If, on the other hand, the price of the remaining market rate condominium suites were to increase to offset the cost of the affordable component, they would need to increase by $91 per square foot. This translates, in the above example, into a sticker price increase of approximately $60,000 per suite.

    These numbers are, of course, not exact. That is not the point of this post. Every project is different. But hopefully it gives you an idea of some of the levers that will invariably need to be pulled when inclusionary zoning comes into force.

    My sense is that this latter scenario is more likely to happen. I have yet to see land prices adjust downward in the face of rising costs. So all of this is likely to be bad for broad-based affordability, but good if you want to be bullish on market rate home prices.