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

  • Will “bleisure” travel become a thing?

    According to this recent WSJ article, 60% of Marriott’s hotel stays in 2019 were for business travel. Given that this travel segment is believed to be one of the most permanently impacted by soul-sucking virtual meetings, the company has announced that it will be working to turn its hotels, or at least some of them, into “bleisure” destinations.

    The idea here, as I understand it, is that if this pandemic does in fact result in greater work flexibility, but less business travel, then this could be a way to target people who are “working from anywhere.” Don’t travel for work; work while you travel, is I guess how you could spin this.

    I’m not clear yet on how exactly this gets executed, but it sounds somewhat similar to the coliving/coworking spaces that currently cater to digital nomads and other location-agnostic professionals. Examples include companies like Outpost and Outsite.

    Regardless of whether or not this is actually practical, productive, and scalable (it could be), I think the idea of working from different (and potentially exotic) locations all around the world is a compelling concept for many people. Especially right now after a year of mostly working from the kitchen table.

  • Why urban density is good for innovation

    One of the reasons why I remain so bullish on cities is because we know that new ideas disproportionately come from cities (typically big and dense ones). Matt Clancy does an excellent job of explaining this in a recent post. In it, he cites a number of studies that suggest density is pretty good. It’s good for not only increasing innovation, but also for increasing the diversity of innovation.

    One of the studies found that, all else being equal, doubling the number of jobs per square mile resulted in 20% more patents per capita. Matt argues that the reason for this is that density allows us to meet and collaborate with new people. With this is mind, what do you think that working from home (which is the opposite of job density) might do to innovation/patents?

    Another one of the studies that Matt cites in his article deals with the correlation between patents and street grids. Denser street networks seem to have a marginally positive relationship with innovation.

    But Matt surmises that this may not be because it means we’re all serendipitously bumping into each other all over the place; instead a denser street network is likely symptomatic of other things — namely an increase in “third places.” Because if you consider which census blocks have a concentration of restaurants, cafes, and bars, the number of patents then goes up meaningfully.

    As further evidence of this, Matt cites a fascinating paper from 2019 which looked at the effects of early 20th century prohibition on patents. Turns out that this is a pretty good experiment, because you can examine the impacts of prohibition, as well as compare counties that were already dry (i.e. unaffected by prohibition) against counties that were wet prior to prohibition.

    What the study found was that (1) prior to prohibition wet counties were producing more patents per capita (where they bigger and denser?) and (2) wet counties saw a meaningful drop in patents right after prohibition. Previously dry counties went unchanged in terms of innovation.

    If you’re skeptical of the relationship between bars and innovation, I would encourage you to check out Matt’s full post. But know that there is overwhelming research to suggest that new ideas tend to flourish in the big and dense places that we call cities.

  • Urbanization since the 14th century

    This morning I stumbled up on this conversation between Richard Florida and Ed Glaeser about the post-pandemic city. It’s from September 2020 and that is obvious in some of the comments. Richard Florida (who was in Toronto) remarked that it felt like the pandemic was mostly over at that time and that Canada had seemingly done a much better job than the US at tackling it. That no longer feels right. But I did find myself agreeing with some of their other points.

    Here’s one from Ed Glaeser that looks back to previous health crises:

    But pretty much since the 14th century, urbanization proceeded despite the reappearance of the Black Death in the 1350s. Urbanization proceeded despite the Great Plague of London in the 1660s. All of the great diseases that spread in 19th-century America, cholera, yellow fever, the urbanization just chugged along. Even the influenza pandemic of 1919-1920 was followed by a tremendous decade of city building. So, I think our cities have proven to be remarkably resilient.

    For the full conversation, click here.

  • What’s next for Canada’s housing market?

    Rachelle Younglai’s recent piece in the Globe and Mail does a great job summarizing Canada’s COVID-19 housing boom. The title of the article is, “How Canada’s real estate market defied expectations in the COVID-19 pandemic.”

    Non-mortgage debt is down. Mortgage debt is up. Money is cheap. And people are clamoring for drivable vacation homes. Average home prices in places like Prince Edward County and the Kawartha Lakes (both outside of Toronto) are up ~30% from Jan 2020 to Jan 2021.

    But after I sent this article around this morning, I was reminded that this is a good summary of what has just happened. It, for the most part, does not speak to what might happen going forward.

    None of us can travel anywhere. We’re stuck at home. And immigration volumes last year were down some 48% in Toronto, 43% in Vancouver, 40% in Montreal, and 46% in Calgary. The Toronto region went from about 120,000 new permanent residents in 2019 to about half that last year.

    The behaviors and market outcomes that we have seen over the last 12 months, therefore, make intuitive sense. But how about the next 12 months or the next 5 years? I would prefer to use this latter time period for decision making right now.

    Chart: The Globe and Mail

  • Introducing the One Delisle video series — a renaissance at Yonge and St. Clair

    Today I am excited to share the first episode in a new film series about One Delisle and the surrounding neighborhood of Yonge and St. Clair in midtown Toronto. Created for Slate Asset Management by the award-winning UK filmmakers, Raspberry and Jam, the series is about telling the story of how Studio Gang’s first ever project in Canada came to be. (Hint: It started with a neighborhood and not with an individual building.) Episode one is called “A Renaissance at Yonge and St. Clair” and you can view it over at onedelisle.com. Stay tuned for episode two and for the upcoming launch of One Delisle this spring.

  • Shopify’s mission is to be an entrepreneurship company

    Howard Lindzon has a podcast called Panic with Friends. It was started last March (hence the name) and he uses it to interview entrepreneurs, investors, venture capitalists, and other business people about what they’re up to. In today’s episode he speaks with Harley Finkelstein, President of Shopify, about the future of ecommerce and about how they’re positioning the company. What was interesting but not surprising to hear was that in the early years people didn’t believe that Shopify had a large enough total addressable market. Supposedly, there weren’t enough people out there who might be interested in starting their own online store. That, of course, has proven to be false and there are new and successful ideas emerging all the time. We’re also now talking about how ecommerce is reshaping the landscape of our cities. Given all of this, the company has grown to think of itself as an entrepreneurship company. If you’re at all ambitious, then you’re an entrepreneur in their eyes and Shopify wants to be the platform for you. As a Canadian, it’s great to see them doing so well. If you can’t see the embedded Spotify player above, click here.

  • What are your thoughts on Airbnb?

    Surface Magazine just republished this 2016 interview with Arne Sorenson. Sorenson was CEO of Marriott, but sadly passed away this week after a battle with pancreatic cancer.

    One of the questions he was asked in the interview was about the rise of Airbnb. This is how he responded:

    “It’s fascinating. I hope we’re not as exposed to this as the taxi industry is right now.  Taxis in many cities are awful and hard to find. So here comes Uber with a better product. In the hotel business, I still think we can deliver better service, so we don’t have quite the same risk. Airbnb is fascinating. Increasingly, it’s less personal, and there are more dedicated units. The more they get into that space, they become a competitor. The story isn’t over, but we’re set up to compete well.“

    Taxis were awful and that business model is done for good. But how do Sorenson’s comments about Airbnb hold up today?

    Marriott ended up launching its own home sharing platform in 2019, but it’s comparatively small as I understand it. There are also no shortage of bull cases for Airbnb (and just look at its market cap).

    But there are also headwinds. Barcelona, for example, is looking to permanently ban people from renting out private rooms on a short-term basis (< 30 days). This is even if the rest of the home remains owner occupied.

    So what use cases remain? Only extended stays?

    If I look at my own pre-pandemic travel record, I am largely in the hotel camp. I like the consistency and I like certain brands. But maybe that’s just me getting older. What do you all think? Leave a comment below.

  • We’re all going back to offices — most of us anyway

    I was speaking with a writer from the Globe & Mail today about the future of office. We were half talking about a new AAA strata office building — called Capital Point — that we (Slate) are in the midst of launching in the Metrotown neighborhood of Burnaby, BC. And we were half talking about whether or not we’re all going to return to offices.

    This is one of the great debates of the pandemic but, as I mentioned in my 2021 predictions post, I think it’s overblown. The longer I work from home and spend my entire day on video calls (only to start actual work in the evening), the more I become convinced that this is a suboptimal arrangement for productivity, collaboration, personal motivation, employee morale, and talent retention (among many other things).

    We have complete conviction around great offices in the right locations. That’s why Amazon and whoever else continue to build. They’re rightly looking past this period of dislocation (12-24 months of suck). Again, this is not to say that there won’t be some changes and that certain pre-existing trends haven’t been accelerated, because they have been. But I believe that humans will continue to cluster for work.

    In fact, it’s hard to disentangle cities and offices. Cities are labor markets. It’s where agglomeration economies take hold and where people come to improve their socioeconomic standing in the world (as well as meet people and have fun). To say that we no longer need to come together in person for work is to say, in a way, that we no longer need cities. We can all decentralize.

    That is not a bet that I am prepared to make.

    For more information about Capital Point and to register for the project, click here.

  • Why many tall buildings in Hong Kong have holes in them

    Hong Kong is known for having mysterious holes in many of its tall buildings. The Repulse Bay Hotel (pictured above) is one example. Completed in 1986, its hole is 16m wide by 24m tall.

    The reasoning for these holes is apparently twofold.

    They started because of feng shui and more specifically because of “spirit dragons.” Some believe that spirit dragons live in the mountains surrounding Hong Kong and that they like to descend each day in order to bathe in the water. Legend therefore has it that if you obstruct their path of travel, bad things could happen to you. These holes are where they fly.

    The other reason for these tower holes is far less superstitious and entirely practical. Hong Kong has a kind of built form known as “wall-effect buildings.” These are large buildings with large floor plates that create a kind of wall in the landscape. So to break up the massing and allow more natural light and air to flow through, holes are introduced.

    So maybe it’s because of spirit dragons or maybe it’s to encourage more light and air. Either way, these tower holes have become part of the Hong Kong landscape.

    Image: Hongkong and Shanghai Hotels

  • Income-to-expense ratio

    Professor Scott Galloway’s recent post called “The Algebra of Wealth” makes the argument that there are four key factors in the creation of wealth: focus, stoicism, time, and diversification. Some of you may argue with his points around diversification. I’ve heard Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger say before that diversification is really just admitting that you have no idea what the hell you’re doing. Because if you did, you wouldn’t need diversification to protect you.

    That said, I like a lot of the points that Galloway makes on his blog. For one, he calls bullshit on the age-old advice that you should just “follow your passion.” Finding something you love to do is important and ideal. I feel incredibly fortunate that I found something (there were pivots) that I want to be my life’s work. But that doesn’t mean that I didn’t and that I don’t think about money. As I’ve said before, I never understood why money is often a taboo topic in architecture schools.

    Galloway also takes a stab at defining, what is rich?

    “I know a lot of people who make an extraordinary amount of money, but few people who are rich. Rich is having passive income greater than your burn. People on a path to money focus on their earnings; people on a path to wealth also focus on their burn. Joseph Heller said, “It takes brains not to make money.” (Note: I think he was casting a favorable light on his starving artist friends). This may be true, but it definitely takes brains to hold onto it (i.e., money).“

    “My father receives $48,000 per year from Social Security and his Royal Navy pension (he was a frogman). He spends $40,000, and it’s enough to make him happy. He swims every day, watches a shit-ton of hockey (Leafs fan), and on Fridays goes to The Taco Stand (an actual restaurant in La Jolla) where he orders something called a michelada. (Apparently it’s medicine delivered in a chilled salt-rimmed glass — he claims his hair is regrowing and that he’s sleeping better. I believe half of that so … I believe it.) Anyway, it’s not your income, but your income-to-expense ratio, that determines if you’re rich.“

    When I was growing up, my dad used to always tell me that it doesn’t matter how much money you make, it matters what you do with the money that you make. That is another way of saying, focus on your income-to-expense ratio. Spend less than you make and be strategic with what’s leftover. This is a good principle to follow for real estate as well. As a rule, it’s generally a good thing when your revenue is greater than your operating expenses and your NOI is positive.

    But there’s another important message in Galloway’s excerpt: you don’t necessarily need a lot to be happy. (Sign me up for The Taco Stand on Fridays!) And if you’re in position where your passive income is greater than your burn, then you also have something called freedom.

    For Scott Galloway’s full post about The Algebra of Wealth, click here.