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.
Last month I wrote a post introducing the One Delisle video series. Well, in case you missed it, the next two episodes in the series are now out, which you can watch over here. My personal favorite (so far) is episode two. It’s about city building at Yonge & St. Clair and a goal that Slate set for itself to do “one cool thing each year.” That thing has ranged from murals to streetscape improvements, and has included work from artists such as birdO (aka Jerry Rugg). If you aren’t familiar with his work, have a look over here.
Back in 2019, Lake Research Partners conducted a housing study for California YIMBY. One of the questions that California voters were asked was about whether or not they support or oppose having more housing built in their community. Here is how people responded (about 700 interviews were conducted by phone and about 500 people were asked online):
What this seems to suggest is that most people (61% of all voters) support more housing in their community, with 38% (the darker bar) feeling very strongly about it. These results also seem to suggest that if you’re already a homeowner and/or if you’re a Republican, that you are then less likely to support housing in your community (51% and 54%, respectively). Even still, one possible conclusion that you can draw from these findings is that, perhaps in all cases, a majority of people (>50%) support the idea of more housing in their community.
However, the problem with this approach is that you’re ultimately asking a pretty generic and theoretical question about housing supply. I am presuming that this is a scenario where the rubber has not yet hit the road. Indeed, most people will say that they support new housing in their backyard, but is that actually how things will play it? It’s pretty common, for example, to hear things like: “I support new development, but I think this project is simply too ___________.”
So while I think that there are some interesting directional indicators that one could draw from these findings, I suspect that the numbers in the real world might be slightly less rosy.
Today was an important milestone for Junction House: The construction crane was erected! The crew started early in the morning and we ended up having a perfect bluebird day (I don’t know where this expression comes from but it’s used all the time by skiers and snowboarders).
It’s been a tough winter for most of us. And so in my view, it is particularly important to celebrate these kinds of milestones and achievements. Thankfully, there seems to be a general optimism in the air these days. I think it’s going to be a great summer.
Now that the crane has been installed, it’s time to start building up.
The city of Los Angeles has taken an interesting approach to accessory dwelling units (what we generally call laneway or garden suites here in Toronto). In an effort to streamline the approvals process and bolster the supply of housing in the city, they’ve gone out and pre-approved a series of “standard plans” that you can quickly implement on your property. The idea here is that all of their approved plans have already been checked for compliance with the various building codes. So those reviews don’t need to happen before a permit can be issued (though the building department would still need to review any site-specific conditions).
What that means is that if you’re in the market for, say, a one-storey, one-bedroom ADU at around 450 sf, you can simply scroll through their list and find the one you like the most. Here is one that fits this criteria by Design, Bitches (I just wanted to mention this firm name). The potential downside of this approach is that it could encourage less architectural experimentation. On the flipside, many of their approved designs are really nice and so maybe it’s a boon for those who are lacking in good taste. Either way, if you want to encourage more of something, the way to do that is to reduce friction.
To start to give you a sense of how meaningful this could become, the city of Los Angeles received 1,980 applications for ADU construction back in 2017. This is the year in which the state changed its regulations so that ADUs were no longer prohibited in some municipalities (I don’t know all of the specifics truthfully). Last year, LA saw 5,374 applications and I suspect the number will be even higher this year. Should other cities look at pre-approving certain designs? And could this be an approach used for even larger building typologies? Speed is good.
Gestalten and SPACE10 have a new book out that I think many of you may want to add to your library. It’s called The Ideal City, and it’s all about what’s next when it comes to cities. Here’s a short excerpt from the publisher:
Urban life is humankind’s biggest experiment to date, our cities are constantly evolving and adapting to climate and economy. The cities we have today are not necessarily the ones we need, but big and small innovation is rethinking visions of urbanization. Together with pioneering research and design lab SPACE10, we present future-orientated design which enhances quality of life and makes our urban spaces more vibrant.
As technology and urban life edge ever closer, The Ideal City explores the ambitious actions and initiatives being brought to life across the globe to meet tomorrow’s demand in clever, forwarding-thinking ways. From pedestrian infrastructure to housing, the book uncovers what is being discussed at the forefront of urbanism through expert essays and profiles.
The sentiment around downtown/urban condos has completely changed over the last month or so. This is happening in Toronto and, from what I hear, it’s happening in many other cities as well. Carolyn Ireland published an article in the Globe and Mail today called, “For downtown Toronto condos, the worm has turned.”
But I can also speak to what we (and our colleagues in the industry) are seeing on the ground. A sense of urgency has returned. Prices are starting to push upward. And people are buying. The last few weeks have also seen some very successful condo launches in the city including 8 Wellesley by CentreCourt Developments. I can’t remember if they sold out in 7 minutes or 7.5 minutes.
None of this is necessarily surprising. Interest rates are low. The US is doing a good job at vaccinating its people. Single-family home prices have exploded over the last year (pushing buyers toward condos). And there seems to be an emerging view that the second half of this year is going to be pretty good. (This was my view at the beginning of the year and stand behind that position.)
Today was a beautiful spring-like day in Toronto. I was out for a site visit this morning and the sidewalks were filled with people milling about and enjoying the sunshine. City life isn’t going anywhere my friends. Long live the city.
This is an interesting article by Ben Schott of Bloomberg talking about how “debranding is the new branding.” In it he argues that for reasons of fashion, tech, and other factors, many or perhaps most brands seem to be shedding detail and depth in their brands/logos and moving toward simplicity and flatness. He calls this debranding (which doesn’t quite feel like the right word to me.)
Countless examples are provided ranging from Burger King and KFC to Saint Laurent Paris and Diane Von Furstenberg. In all cases, their logos and lockups went from elaborate to minimal. And in some cases, names were deliberately shortened. Kentucky Friend Chicken, as you all know, became KFC, largely because “fried” was becoming an undesirable reference.
The same is also true for newer brands that have no history of elaborate logos. As I was reading through the article, I started thinking about some of the project brands that we have created over the years. Here is our logo for Junction House (crafted by Vanderbrand):
Some of this is certainly about fashion. At this point, overly detailed logos feel a bit cartoonish and antiquated. Clean and minimal is pretty much what you want today. Slate’s logo went through a similar transformation over the years and is now, as many of you know, a black box with white text.
Another part of this is that logos and brands now need to live in so many different locations from favicons and mobile apps to business cards and social media profile photos. Sometimes you just don’t have enough real estate to show a lot of detail.
Simplicity can also signal strength. Starbucks is perhaps a good example of this. Initially their logo spelled out Starbucks Coffee. But now we all associate their green nautical-inspired sea lady with Starbucks Coffee and so those words are no longer necessary. This kind of brand equity, of course, takes time to build.
Fashion label Off-White is another interesting case study that I wrote about a few years ago, over here. What they have managed to do is take simple and mundane things like quotation marks and really own them as part of their brand. Put any word in quotation marks on a t-shirt and you’ll have me thinking it’s a $315 Off-White tee.
I just discovered the work and writing of Dror Poleg. Initially trained as an economic historian and media theorist, Dror went on to work in advertising, tech, and real estate private equity, among probably a bunch of other things. Today he mostly writes. He’s the author of Rethinking Real Estate: A Roadmap To Technology’s Impact on the World’s Largest Asset Class. I haven’t read it (yet), but I did just subscribe to his weekly newsletter. Here are a couple of excerpts from a recent post called, “Rise of the 10X Class.”
In 2020, things are very different. Charli D’Amelio, a TikTok star that 99% of you have likely never heard of, makes $48,000 per post. By uploading one short video every day, the 16-year-old D’Amelio can earn 20 times more than the world’s most successful singer earned in 1801. Charli is scalable in a way that was possible only for a tiny group of TV, film, and pop stars 20 years ago, and was not possible at all in Elizabeth Billington’s time.
The internet makes it possible for many knowledge employees to work from anywhere. The earning potential of (many of) the most productive employees is no longer capped by geography. As a result, we will see the emergence of a new class of people earning salaries that are an order of magnitude higher than what we saw in previous decades.
Note that I am not talking about the emergence of a handful of highly-paid superstars in the vein of Hollywood’s Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks. I am talking about micro-stars in the vein of TikTok’s Charli D’Amelio: a whole new layer of professionals than earn incomes that are a level below the biggest earners on in their field, but still much higher than what the average employee (or singer, or dancer) could earn in the pre-internet era.
I call this new layer of professionals the 10X Class.
The winner of the 2021 Pritzker Prize — which is often considered to be the highest honor in the world of architecture — is expected to be announced sometime in “early March.” In anticipation of that, ArchDaily is asking its readers to opine on who they think should win the prize. This is something they usually do each year. I just casted my vote (for someone who happens to be pictured above). If you’d like to do the same, click here. And if you’d like to see who the jury members are for this year, go here.
It’s hard for countless reasons, but one reason in particular is that it can be difficult to please everyone. Take parking, for example. This is often a primary concern when you’re trying to develop something new. Too little parking and people might be concerned that cars will start flooding the surrounding streets in search of a spot. Too much parking and people might be concerned about traffic congestion. So it can often feel like you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
I thought of this as I was reading through Alex Bozikovic’s recent opinion piece in the Globe and Mail called, “Yes, in my backyard: How urban planning must shift to meet our postpandemic challenges.” In it, he mentions a small missing middle-type infill project at 225 Brunswick Avenue here in Toronto. A century-old office building located in a residential neighborhood, a small developer has been working (with Suulin Architects) since 2018 to convert it into seven apartments.
Here are a few photos:
This is the kind of infill housing that planning staff and many councillors are trying to encourage across the city. And yet, the year is 2021. This developer is on year three in a process that will, maybe, deliver a total of seven new rental homes. There are also many other examples that we can point to in the city that have faced similar challenges, like this one here on Gerrard Street East. While not nearly as interesting architecturally speaking, it would have delivered 10 new homes proximate to transit. Maybe that will still happen. I can’t say for sure.
I’m not going to get into the specifics of any one proposal, but two things are clear to me: (1) Our city, and many other cities around the world, have a need for more missing middle-type infill housing and (2) our system is greatly flawed if it takes years and years to ultimately green light the delivery of only a half dozen or so new homes.
Time equals money. And when we make the process this difficult it means that many developers aren’t going to bother (because the math probably doesn’t work) and that the ones who are successful will need to absorb a bunch of unnecessary costs in the end pricing/rents of their homes (i.e. make the homes more expensive than they need to be).
225 Brunswick is exactly the kind of project that I would love to work on: a small-scale adaptive reuse project where design is clearly a priority. But with a 3-4 year entitlement timeline (perhaps longer?), it’s simply not worth it (though I do commend the efforts of the project team). I’m sure many others feel the same way that I do and that’s unfortunate when you’re trying to build a more vibrant, inclusive, and competitive global city.
