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.
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.
Swiss supermarket chain, Migros, has just launched what is being called the first store in Switzerland to not have any employees. The concept, called the Voi Cube, is a small container-like outparcel space that is open 24/7 and offers about 500 or so everyday items. You enter using their app, you grab what you need, and then you check yourself out. (Presumably the doors don’t open back up until you’ve paid.)
The concept is being positioned as a convenience add-on to its existing grocery store business. Swiss federal labor laws still prohibit retail staff from working on Sundays, and so this is a clever way for people to shop for essentials during that time. They just got rid of the labor component. It also begins to show just how flexible and adaptable grocery stores can be as the retail landscape continues to evolve.
Amazon unveiled the design for part of its new HQ2 campus in Arlington today. The plan is a cluster of new office and retail buildings that will accommodate some 13,000 employees. When fully built out, its HQ2 is expected to house upwards of 25,000 employees.
The centerpiece of the proposed campus is something that is being called the Helix, which is a spiraling building with outdoor walkways housing native trees and plants from the Virginia area. The idea is that it will become a place for people to go for walks and hikes “outside.”
Here’s what that looks like (image from architecture firm NBBJ):
In addition to a cool spiraling building, it’s of course also noteworthy that Amazon (along with many other companies) is continuing to forge ahead with its plans to build and occupy more office space in important urban centers.
While numerous tech firms have pledged to allow employees to work from home even after the coronavirus pandemic is contained, Amazon, Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and others have continued to expand their urban office footprints. By investing heavily in big city real estate, they are betting that office space will be an important part of their corporate culture after the pandemic is over.
“We have to think about this as a long-term investment,” said John Schoettler, Amazon’s vice president of global real estate and facilities. “These buildings will begin to deliver in 2025. And so we believe that the world will be a much improved place than it is currently.”
Like most companies, they are naturally questioning to what extent some employees won’t be going into the office every weekday. But even still, the above announcement is yet another great example of why office space — and spiraling outdoor spaces — will continue to form an important part of the future of work.
A rezoning submission was recently filed with the City of Vancouver for two towers on Alberni Street in the West End. Designed by Heatherwick Studio for Bosa Properties and Kingswood Properties, this will be the design firm’s first high-rise project in the country when built.
There are some incredible pieces of architecture in the pipeline in Vancouver and I would now add this one to the list. Below are a few renderings and massing studies taken from Vancouver’s Shape Your City website.
It’s also worth noting that Vancouver’s Shape Your City website allows people to very easily comment on rezoning applications. And as part of that, you are asked to state your overall position on the proposal: Support, Opposed, or Mixed.
This strikes me as a step in the right direction, as I think it’s important to reduce the friction associated with participating. Asking people to show up to a community meeting (whether IRL or online) is a level of commitment that is simply too great for most people.
But I don’t think it solves the problem that opposition is usually a more powerful motivator than support. And so I’m not yet convinced that we have systems in place which accurately and broadly capture the way that cities and communities are feeling about certain proposed changes.
Google Maps recently introduced a new feature that allows you to search for electric vehicle charging stations by plug type. Here’s what it looks like when I tried it here in Toronto:
While helpful, it demonstrates two things. One, there are too many plug types and that’s a problem for EV adoption. Nissans and Mitsubishis use CHAdeMO, BMWs use CCS, and Tesla has its own proprietary plug, for example.
Two, this is one the main reasons why Tesla is so far ahead when it comes to EVs. They’ve been very purposeful in building out an expansive network of charging stations so as to avoid what is very clearly a chicken-and-egg problem. You need great EVs and then places to charge said vehicles.
As of January 2021, Tesla operates over 2,105 Supercharger stations worldwide with over 1,094 stations in North America, 589 in Europe, and 423 in Asia/Pacific. This is how you start to compete when there are over 160,000 gas stations in the US alone.
There are many development narratives that I don’t quite understand. (I’m thinking of Toronto, but you can probably replace Toronto with any number of global cities for this discussion.) One is the belief that our transit network is full and so no new development should be allowed in certain locations, next to certain transit stations. The thrust of this argument is that additional transit capacity must be added before any new development is allowed to occur. This might sound logical, except it ignores the fact that the need for new housing doesn’t magically disappear because subway cars are thought to be too busy during the morning rush.
Transit systems are also a network, and so does this mean that no more development should be allowed to happen anywhere in the city/region? Or is the goal to simply move development off of higher order transit and into lower-density areas so that the future residents in these new buildings can either take buses to the transit stations that were previously deemed to be at capacity or drive their cars everywhere? (Our highways have excess capacity during the morning rush, right?)
The second narrative that I find perplexing is that new developments don’t give back in any way. Above is a chart showing residential development charges in the City of Toronto, as of November 1, 2020. This chart outlines the fees that every developer must pay when building new residential, though it is important to keep in mind that there are many other government fees and charges that form part of almost every new development. These are things like parkland dedication and separately negotiated community benefits. But for the purposes of this post, let’s just focus on development charges (aka impact fees).
Assume you’re building a 400 unit apartment building, consisting of 240 one bedroom suites (60%) and 160 two and three bedroom suites (40%). Based on the above chart, your development charge bill would be:
240 one bedroom suites x $33,358 per unit = $8,005,920
160 two and three bedroom suites x $51,103 per unit = $8,176,480
For a total of $16,182,400.
But it’s important to keep in mind that these are the rates as of November 1, 2020. They will almost certainly go up by the time these charges become payable for your 400 unit apartment building. By how much you ask? Well according to Urban Capital’s most recent issue of Site Magazine, which compared a development pro forma from 2005 to 2020, development charges in the City of Toronto have increased by about 3,244% during this time period. (The S&P 500 was up about 220% during this same time.) These are obligatory fees that contribute to everything from transit and parks to subsidized housing and municipal services. (The line items above.)
So it strikes me that there are other more productive questions that we could and should be asking ourselves. Such as, why is it that our transit/mobility infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with new development and new housing demand? What are we going to do to fix that immediately? Why are we not taxing the things we don’t want (like traffic congestion) so that we have more resources for the things we do want (like transit and housing)? And most importantly, what is the best way for all of us to work together so that we can create the absolute greatest global city in the world?
This is an incredible house in Hamilton, Ontario by Toronto-based architecture practice Partisans. The central idea is clearly its folding roof, which dips down to accommodate a set of stairs that lead to the roof of the house. At the same time, the sloping roof creates a wave-like enclosure for the indoor/outdoor pool that sits below it.
Partisans is, in my opinion, one of the most creative firms practicing in the city today. This house is a good example of that. I also admire their ability to go deep into materials and construction methods, which is something you need to do when you design forms like the ones you’re seeing here. For more photos and information, check out this Dezeen article about the project.
Back in 2006, Paul Graham penned an essay about how to be Silicon Valley. Since then, it seems like every city on the planet has tried to replicate the successes of the Valley. At the time, his argument was pretty simple. Geography used to be destiny when it came to cities. New York City, for example, is arguably what it is today because of its geography and its deep harbor, which created a natural competitive advantage compared to other east coast cities such as Boston and Philadelphia. But this, he argues, has become far less relevant. Now, you can create a great city pretty much anywhere. So what are the necessary ingredients?
Paul argued that you only really need two kinds of people to create a technology hub: rich people and nerds. You need people creating new things and you need rich people to fund those new ideas. That’s it. So in theory, if you could just dump a bunch of these kinds of people in one place — Nunavut? — you’d perhaps get unicorns coming out the other end. He goes on to say that Miami is a perfect example of a city that has lots of the former, but very few of the latter. It has lots of rich people, but, in his words, it’s not the kind of place that nerds like. So it is/was not a good startup city. (I’m a nerd and I like Miami.)
But the year is now 2021 and a global pandemic seems to be helping to change this dynamic. Every tech entrepreneur and/or investor now seems to want to move to either Austin or Miami. To that end, SoftBank recently announced that it has earmarked $100 million for startups that are based in Miami or that plan to be based in Miami in the near future. It’s perhaps a good testament to the momentum that seems to be developing around the startup scene in the city, which is something that their mayor has been incredibly vocal about.
But here’s something to consider. Was Paul right about the two requisite ingredients for a successful startup hub? And if so, does Miami now have enough nerds? Maybe this recent influx of people was just what it was missing.
In the world of finance, carried interest is the share of the profits in an investment that a manager (of said investment) earns in excess of what they may have contributed to the partnership. For example, let’s say that a manager is putting in 10% of the cash that is required for a particular project. If the project goes really well, the manager, through carried interest, could earn more than their 10% share of the profits. Put another way, it is a performance fee that is intended to incentivize and reward the manager.
Today I learned (credit to Lucas Manuel) that the origins of carried interest go all the way back to the Middle Ages. The concept and term supposedly came about because the captains of European ships would take a share of the profit from the “carried goods” that they were transporting. This was to compensate them for the work and for the risk of sailing all over the place. Keep in mind that, just like today, any number of things could have gone wrong. Maybe you don’t make it or maybe pirates steal all of your goodies.
There is also a compelling argument (made here) that this simple concept has been instrumental, since the Medieval Period, in improving the fortunes of many, but most notably those that weren’t born into riches and that were starting out with limited means. Carried interest allowed Medieval merchants to (1) initiate sailing ventures for which they didn’t have the requisite money and (2) earn a disproportionate amount of the profits so that they could more quickly improve their socioeconomic position.
Do good work, take on some risk, and then hopefully make a few bucks. That’s still how things work today. Supposedly David Rubenstein, cofounder of The Carlyle Group, also talks about the origins of carried interest in his recent appearance on the Tim Ferriss Show. I say supposedly because podcasts generally take too long for me and I haven’t listened to it.
At the beginning of this month, Restoration Hardware announced that it was making a $105 million equity investment in a development project in Aspen, Colorado. When completed, the project will house what the company is calling their “first RH ecosystem,” which will include an RH Gallery, RH Guesthouse, RH Bath House & Spa, RH Restaurants, and RH Residences. All of this is fascinating to me from an experiential retail, brand ecosystem, and real estate development standpoint. It also reinforces my belief that differentiated hotels and high-touch hospitality aren’t going anywhere, notwithstanding the fact that Airbnb is arguably now the largest “hotel company” in the world. People are hungry for these kinds of curated experiences, and they’re going to be positively starving once we get through this pandemic.
Aspen has been selected to develop the first RH ecosystem inclusive of an RH Bespoke Gallery, RH Guesthouse, RH Bath House & Spa, RH Restaurants, and our first RH Residences. The RH Gallery on Galena, currently under development, will offer two floors of the RH Interiors, Contemporary, Modern, and RH Ski House collections, plus Interior Design, Architecture, and Landscape Architecture services. Additionally, the Gallery will include a transparent glass rooftop restaurant with views of Aspen Mountain, a Wine & Barista Bar, plus two private dining rooms with fireplaces and retractable roofs. The RH Guesthouse at the Historic Crystal Palace, also currently under construction, will feature guest suites with fireplaces, a live fire restaurant, wine vault, private rooftop pool and dining terrace with views of Aspen Mountain, and the brand’s first RH Bath House & Spa. The RH Residences at the Historic Boomerang Lodge will include up to five fully furnished four bedroom custom homes, and The RH Residence on Red Mountain will be a fully furnished six bedroom home with multiple terraces and an infinity pool with views of downtown, Aspen Mountain and Independence Pass. All of the RH Residences will include membership to the RH Bath House & Spa, plus priority reservations at the brand’s restaurants and private dining venues.
