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.

  • Mackay Laneway House is now complete and available for rent

    Eleven years and a few setbacks later and we now have a completed laneway house.

    As Bill Gates once said, “most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years.”

    Construction is all finished up and Mackay Laneway House is available for rent starting immediately.

    For photos and more information, click here.

  • Net new housing units in New York City since 2010

    Here are a few interesting stats from a brief report that New York City published this month about their supply of new housing units:

    • From January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020, New York City delivered 205,994 net new housing units across the five boroughs.
    • This total includes 202,956 units from new construction and 29,161 units from the alteration/conversion of existing buildings. However, it also factors units that were lost as a result of demolition (-17,400) or alteration (-8,723).
    • Brooklyn saw the most supply, followed by Manhattan. The four highest-growth Community Districts were responsible for 1/3 of all new housing additions. These CDs are all formerly non-residential areas that were rezoned to allow living.
    • Manhattan saw the greatest loss in housing units as a result of alterations (people combining units). This was most prevalent in wealthy neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, and Greenwich Village.

    What is interesting about this last point is that it shows you that cities are far from static. New York City lost 26,123 housing units during the above time period, with 8,723 units being lost to alterations and people combining units.

    The orange areas on the above map are neighborhoods which actually became less dense over the last decade. And of course, this phenomenon is not unique to New York City. We are seeing the same thing play out in some/many neighborhoods in Toronto.

    What this mean is that the role of new development is really twofold. It allows a city to grow (i.e. house new New Yorkers), but it also replaces lost housing and relieves some of the pressures on the existing housing stock. I don’t think many people appreciate this dynamic — or perhaps they don’t care.

    For a copy of the full report (it’s only two pages), click here.

  • Luxury housing surges in San Francisco

    The story of two markets continues. Median rents in San Francisco are down some 27% percent over the last year. Sales of homes priced under $300,000 are down by about a fifth. And yet, according to the Financial Times, sales are up significantly for homes priced above $2 million. For the top 5% of homes, prices ended the year up about 26.5%. Overall, the median home price in San Francisco was up 16.8% last year. It now sits at $718,000. As we’ve talked about before, much of this can be chalked up to the fact that the financial impacts of this current environment are being unequally felt. But I also see it as evidence that, despite all of the media headlines, many/most people aren’t actually betting against cities.

    Chart: FT

  • The great unbundling

    Every year, Benedict Evans publishes a presentation about the “big macro tech trends” impacting the global economy. They are always excellent and I usually share them here on the blog. It’s also becoming harder and harder to differentiate tech trends from the rest of the economy, and so in many ways this is just a presentation about important macro trends.

    In this year’s presentation, he focuses on the “unbundling” of retail, ecommerce, advertising and TV; China and the end of the American internet; and a few other timely topics. To view the presentation, click here. Benedict also delivered this same presentation at a recent event by Protocol and Nasdaq (video link) in case you’d prefer to consume the content that way.

  • Using Clubhouse to talk about real estate and proptech

    Okay, Clubhouse is pretty awesome. I participated in my first discussion room — thanks to my friend Evgeny, who has been a vocal supporter of the platform — and I have now seen the light. The topic was real estate and PropTech. And we hope to do it again.

    It feels a bit like Twitter to me, but obviously with audio and with greater controls and visibility in terms of who can participate inside of a discussion room.

    It also makes perfect sense to me that Twitter is piloting their own version of Clubhouse called Spaces. That feels like a natural extension and something that needs to happen. Perhaps some of the moderation features will also make their way into the rest of Twitter.

    As many of you already know, what makes Clubhouse unique is that the communication is free-flowing and impromptu. You are able to see what topics people are talking about and then jump in and out of those audio rooms, as well as invite people to join a discussion that you may be having.

    All of this makes the communication feel like you’re at a party or in an open office. Over there you can see/hear that someone is talking about the “Pensky file.” If that’s interesting and/or relevant to you, you have the option of jumping into that conversation.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of these features and behaviors translated over into workplace collaboration tools. I think it would be helpful to see what other discussions are taking place within a team or company.

    Maybe if we made things a little more free flowing, we wouldn’t need so many damn Zoom meetings.

  • The 25 top-funded proptech startups in Canada

    Proptech Collective has just published their inaugural 2021 Proptech in Canada report. Here are a couple of screen grabs that you all might find interesting:

    What these images should tell you is that the Canadian proptech landscape is fairly Toronto-centric, but that it’s also very much in its nascent stages. We’re just getting started here.

    I would encourage you to download a full copy of the report. It’s very well done.

  • The birth of electronic music

    What We Started is an interesting documentary about the birth and history of electronic dance music (EDM), starting with house music in Chicago and techno music in Detroit.

    Personally, I view EDM as being distinct from house & techno, and it’s generally not my favorite kind of electronic music. But that’s besides the point. EDM is now wildly popular. It has crossed over into the mainstream and bled into many other genres.

    What’s fascinating about the story of electronic music is that it’s a reminder that new ideas and new movements tend to start out on the fringe. Electronic music came from hobbyists experimenting in their garages, basements, and in warehouses. It was people tinkering with something that they were passionate about.

    And let’s face it, that’s the only way this genre of music could have gotten started because no record label would have signed an electronic DJ back in the 1980s. It was weird and underground, and in the early years, the US mainstream media was openly hostile toward it.

    It reminds me of a blog post that Chris Dixon wrote back in 2013 called, “what the smartest people do on the weekend is what everyone else will do during the week in ten years.” New ideas start on the margin.

    The other fascinating thing about this story is that the emergence of new ideas are often tied to a particular time and place. Think tech and Silicon Valley. In the case of techno, which is often described as being sharper, faster, and more precise than house music, it feels right that it originated in a city like Detroit.

    Detroit was extremely musical, but it was also high-tech. It was machines and assembly lines and that clearly created fertile ground for a new genre of music that relied on, well, machines.

  • K-shaped housing market

    If you’ve been following the housing market (in most cities) over the last year, this chart likely won’t surprise you. It is from a recent City Observatory article by Joe Cortright talking about the “k-shaped housing market” that we have seen emerge over the last year. The above is for the US, but I would imagine that the chart would look similar for Canada, as well as for other countries. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

    There’s an obvious explanation for the different trajectories of house prices and rents:  Low income workers rent; high income workers own and buy homes. High income households have been barely grazed by the Covid-19 recession.  In fact, the combination of low interest rates and enforced savings (because many kinds of consumption spending, including dining, entertainment, travel and even much retail have been constrained by lockdowns), mean higher income households may find housing a much more attractive spending item.  If you can’t go out to dinner, or take a vacation, you have more money to spend on a new home.  Low wage workers are in the opposite situation.  Low wage workers have borne the brunt of the recession; they are also much more likely to be renters than higher income households.

    It is perhaps worth reiterating that our fixation on homeownership is not universal. If you live in Switzerland — a very wealthy country — you’re more likely to rent than own. And if you live in Germany, you’re more likely to live in an apartment than in a low-rise house. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that the impacts of COVID-19, and our lockdowns, have been felt unequally. This chart is an example of that.

  • Thinking long-term and telling the right story

    With the recent announcement that Jeff Bezos will be stepping down as CEO of Amazon later this year, there have been countless articles about the legacy that he will be leaving behind, as well as about the next act that is expected to follow. A big part of this legacy is centered around innovation.

    Do any of you remember Amazon’s Fire Phone? Perhaps not. It was a complete failure. But that doesn’t matter because most people only remember the successes — everything from Amazon Prime to AWS, the latter of which was heavily doubted at the time. Isn’t this a distraction from the core business of selling books?

    This recent FT article by Dave Lee also makes a good point about another one of Amazon’s innovations: thinking long-term and getting the market to buy in to that approach.

    But another Bezos innovation has been his relationship with Wall Street, a world he was intimately familiar with, having previously worked at investment firm DE Shaw.

    Starting with his first letter to shareholders in 1997, Bezos consistently warned investors that profits would forever be secondary to growth, in what would become a recurring theme throughout Amazon’s history as it expanded its distribution network from seven dedicated facilities in 1999, to more than 1,500 today.

    “Bezos has an unparalleled ability to peddle his vision to Wall Street,” says Stacy Mitchell, from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, who advocates breaking Amazon into smaller pieces.

    “He was given this incredibly long leash, selling books at a loss. Independent bookstores could have multiplied across the country with that business model. But of course, they weren’t allowed to lose money.”

    It reminds me of a blog post that Fred Wilson penned at the end of last year, where he argued that speculative frenzies tend to be off in their magnitude, but directionally correct.

    The point he was making was that who knows what the market cap of a company like Tesla should be. With its current market cap, it has been able to raise a lot of money without much dilution and that is going to accelerate our shift toward electric vehicles — a good thing and the right path forward.

    Of course, if you’re an independent bookstore owner, you may not look at Amazon’s approach as being all that innovative. In fact, you may have another word in mind.

    But if you look at the parcel room in any condo or apartment building (as I do all the time), it’s pretty clear to me that the majority of ecommerce transactions are happening on Amazon. A machine has been built that seemingly renders people what they want, how they want it.

  • Cities are not going away

    Here are the results from a recent survey by The Harris Poll and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which asked 1,200 residents from the six largest metropolitan areas in the US how they were feeling about urban and suburban life during this pandemic. (The exact timing was last fall.)

    The bar color indicates where the respondent current lives. So for example, of the respondents who currently reside in an outer suburb (blue bar), 73% said that they wouldn’t change where they live. They seem to be feeling pretty good about their life decisions right now.

    But for respondents who live in an urban area (black bar), 50% also said that they wouldn’t change where they live. And interestingly enough, 25% of all respondents living in a city responded by saying that they were actually more likely to move to another urban area. (Perhaps Miami?)

    For these urbanites, of which I would include myself, the city is far from dead.