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

  • The irony of the Stahl House: A “low-cost” prototype lists for $25 million

    November 25, 2025 · View original

    The Stahl House — also known as Case Study House #22 — is up for sale in Los Angeles.

    Even if you don’t know this house by name, I’m sure you’ve seen Julius Shulman’s iconic photograph from 1960 showing two women sitting in a corner of the house. It is widely credited with turning the house into one of the city’s most recognizable landmarks.

    Buck and Carlotta Stahl are the original owners. They purchased the steep lot for US$13,000 in 1954 (equal to about $157,000 today). This was a large sum of money at the time, especially for a lot that was thought to be unbuildable by many architects.

    Designed by architect Pierre Koenig, the house was built as part of Arts & Architecture magazine’s Case Study program, hence the name. The intent of the program was to come up with templated responses for an expected housing shortage following the Great Depression and World War II.

    When the program launched, it stated that “each house must be capable of duplication and in no sense be an individual performance,” and that “the overall program will be general enough to be of practical assistance to the average American in search of a home in which he can afford to live.”

    Sound familiar?

    The program also secured material donations from the building industry in an effort to make the prototypes as low-cost and repeatable as possible. Ironically, the house became the exact opposite: It became a singular icon of Los Angeles, used in movies, for fashion shoots, and as a general backdrop for a modernist city.

    And today, after 65 years of stewardship under the original owners, the house is on the market for US$25,000,000. This works out to nearly US$11,400 per square foot of interior space.

    When I first saw the list price I immediately thought to myself, “Interesting, I wonder how much of this price is being attributed to the real estate and how much of it is being attributed to its status as an icon and piece of art.”

    I don’t know the LA market very well, so I asked Gemini 3. What it told me is that comparable high-end homes in this area with pools and luxury views often trade for around $2,000 psf. That would put this real estate at around $4.4 million.

    If this is accurate (correct me if I’m wrong, LA people), it means that something like 80% of its list price is being derived from its “brand.” Not bad for a case study house built with low-cost subsidized materials.

    The other possible consideration is that people really like to photograph and film this house. And so there’s also a potential income stream associated with buying it. Assuming that continues (and AI doesn’t replace the need for physical shoot locations), then we’d also have to capitalize this income.

    In this case, the house would have three value components to it: real estate value, art/brand value, and rental income value derived from movies and shoots. Is that equal to $25 million? I don’t know, but the market should tell us soon enough.

    Cover photo by Julius Shulman

  • The self-driving paradox: walkable cities or super-sprawl?

    November 24, 2025 · View original

    Fred Wilson chose the perfect quote by William Gibson, here, to describe the current status of self-driving cars: “The future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed.” That’s how it feels right now.

    Waymo isn’t in Toronto yet, but they are expanding rapidly throughout the US and elsewhere. Last week they announced fully autonomous driving in five new cities: Miami, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Orlando. Autonomy is here, as we have talked about many times. There’s no longer a question.

    But what’s interesting is that we’re at the point in the hype cycle where expectations are not as inflated as they were a number of years ago (at least that’s the way it appears to me). Years ago, everyone in real estate was talking about how it would disrupt parking requirements and reshape the landscape of our cities.

    So when does this happen?

    Fred ended his post by saying that “the downstream effects of this technology and behavior change are going to be profound.” But he doesn’t get into what these changes might be. Let’s do a reminder of that now. Some of the most commonly believed consequences are as follows:

    – Cars consume a vast amount of real estate and also spend the vast majority of their lives just sitting around idle. Switching to a “mobility-as-a-service” model will require dramatically less parking. This is going to force landlords to repurpose the parking they already have and it’s going to encourage developers to build new buildings with reduced parking, or no parking at all. That will be good for housing affordability. – However, the autonomous vehicles will need to park and corral somewhere at some point. My guess is that we will see something akin to rail yards today. This would be a good use for some of our excess parking, though this use won’t require nearly as much. I would also imagine that many of the cars will leave the most valuable and dense parts of a city during off-peak periods. – At the same time, it’s not clear what the winning business model for AVs will be. Will it be a Waymo-like model where the ride-hailing company owns and operates all of the cars? Will it be a Tesla Robotaxi model where individuals own the cars and put them out to work? In this case, maybe the Robotaxis just go back to people’s individual garages. Or will Uber remain the dominant platform? Meaning, an asset-light model that aggregates customer demand remains the highest-value component of the stack. Personally, I can’t see Tesla’s Robotaxi model being very lucrative for individual owners, so I’m inclined to look toward Waymo and Uber. – Street parking will be replaced by a proliferation of pick-up/drop-off zones. This urban design problem will need to be solved as we dramatically increase the number of people getting in and out of AVs on busy urban streets. – In the mid-1990s, Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti remarked that, all throughout history, humans have tended to cap their commute times at about 60 minutes per day. Something like a half hour each way. This became known as Marchetti’s Constant. What this has meant is that as new technologies (streetcars, cars, and so on) allowed us to move faster within that 60 minutes, humans have tended to sprawl further outward. Will AVs do the same, and could they actually break Marchetti’s Constant? – As we all know, the key difference with AVs is that we will no longer need to pay attention to our commute. We could sit in an AV and sleep, work, watch a movie, or do whatever else we’d like. One can think of it like a mobile office or mobile living room. This should, in theory, make commuting long distances a lot more enjoyable and encourage even greater “super sprawl.” – The counterforce to this phenomenon is that if more people are willing to commute long distances in an AV, we will see demand greatly outstrip supply on our roads. In other words, traffic congestion in large cities will get even worse. I think this will force more/most cities to adopt congestion pricing. Politically, it will finally become acceptable, because now we’ll be able to use “the machines” as our scapegoat. They’re overrunning our cities! Ironically, this means that we won’t adopt the thing that makes driving a lot better until we all stop driving.

    So where do these opposing forces ultimately net out? Well, my view (and bias) is that human-scaled walkable communities will always have value. We are social animals. I also think that the experience within our cities will improve dramatically. Pedestrian safety will increase (the data already supports this) and far less space will be dedicated to cars. Good.

    At the same time, I think that reducing commute friction will encourage an exurban explosion. Like the technologies that came before AVs, it’s going to empower humans to further decentralize. What this will do is exacerbate the divide between our urban cores and our suburban and exurban fringes.

    Of course, this is just me surmising. I don’t really know. But AVs are here, and I think it’s time we get back to discussing and planning for the second and third-order effects of this technology.

  • Why 2029 will be the bottom for Toronto housing supply

    November 23, 2025 · View original

    > Tweet: Contrary to some reports, we’re not actually building much rental housing in Toronto these days. https://t.co/t20UiwpQzV

    Rental apartment completions in the Greater Toronto & Hamilton Area (GTHA) are expected to exceed condo completions for the first time in a very long time starting in 2028. But what does this mean for the overall market, and is it actually going to be enough new housing? Let’s look at some of the numbers.

    Last year, the GTHA recorded 29,671 new condo completions. This was some sort of a record. This year, condo completions are projected to total around 31,396 homes. Even higher. But then completions start to fall off, with 17,487 homes scheduled for completion in 2026. By 2029, this number is expected to be close to 1,000. So let’s call it zero for argument’s sake.

    If we are to crudely assume that 50% of these new condominiums ultimately make it to the secondary condo rental market, then we are expecting nearly 16,000 condo rentals this year, just under 9,000 condo rentals in 2026, and ultimately no new condo rentals by around 2029 (or some number close to it).

    Now let’s consider the purpose-built rental side of the equation.

    The 10-year average for purpose-built rental apartment starts in the GTHA is only 2,819 homes. This is a far cry from the volume of rental housing that we delivered in the 60s and 70s. Of course, with the new condominium market largely shut off, there’s renewed interest in building purpose-built rentals.

    In 2024, purpose-built rental apartment completions totalled 5,537 homes. And in the first half of this year, 3,156 homes reached the occupancy stage. Extrapolating out, I’m guessing that puts us somewhere around 6,000 new purpose-built rental apartment homes by the end of 2025.

    If we pause and think about only 2025, we’re on track to deliver roughly 37,000 new condo/rental apartments and ~22,000 new rental homes (again assuming 50% of the new condominiums become secondary rentals). I view this as our peak supply year for this cycle.

    There’s a lot of talk about a “record” number of purpose-built rental apartments now under construction, and while it is true that the numbers are elevated compared to the latest 10-year average, it is not a long-term record compared to the 60s and 70s and, more importantly, it is not enough to offset our dwindling new condominium supply.

    Even if purpose-built rental completions spiked to 8,000 or even 10,000 new homes next year, we are still going to see a drop in new rentals and new housing overall in the GTHA. 2026 is the turning point year where new supply turns south. And it’s going to keep going south until probably 2029, which is when I believe we will see supply bottom out.

    Nothing in this post should be construed as investment or development advice, but here’s the way I’m thinking about it:

    – 2025: ~37,000 new condominium/apartment homes (peak supply year resulting from the pandemic boom) – 2026: ~25,000 new homes (supply begins its decline) – 2027: ~18,000 new homes – 2028: ~10,000 to 13,000 new homes – 2029: ~8,000 to 10,000 new homes (supply bottom)

    I have no idea what will happen with interest rates, immigration, investor sentiment, and the countless other factors that impact a housing market, but even if things started to turn around next year, it would be mostly impossible to avoid the housing supply bottom that I believe we have coming in 2029. Buildings take a long time to build.

    Conclusion: I think that 2026 will prove to be an excellent year to buy assets (land, unsold inventory, IPP, and so on), and that 2028 onward will be an excellent time to be delivering new homes. By then, we should be dramatically undersupplying the market. It doesn’t feel that way today, but eventually the bill from our frozen development market will come due.

    Cover photo by Adam Vradenburg on Unsplash

  • How 15-minute is your city?

    November 22, 2025 · View original

    We all know the concept. Now here’s an interactive map that allows you to explore cities around the world and see how 15-minute they are. In the default case, it is based on how many points of interest somebody could walk to in under 15 minutes (but there’s also a bike toggle). A blue cell means the walk time is less than 15 minutes. And a red cell means it’s greater than 15 minutes.

    Here’s Toronto:

    Salt Lake City:

    Houston:

    Miami:

    Paris:

    Tokyo:

    I tried not to adjust the scale at all, but the amount of blue/red you see will depend on the cropping of each map. Still, it’s pretty clear that Tokyo and Houston are not the same kind of city. What a contrast.

    In some cases, though, I think the blue areas could be, in a way, overstated. Technically, I’m sure the data is right, but practically speaking, a blue area may not be very pedestrian oriented, meaning most people still drive. This is where good urban design factors. A 15-minute walk will feel very different depending on what you’re walking on and through.

    Maps from 15-min-City; cover photo by HANVIN CHEONG on Unsplash

  • What is real anymore? It doesn’t matter.

    In development, visuals are persuasion. AI makes them infinite.

    November 21, 2025 · View original

    > Tweet: Gemini 3 Pro Image vs GPT-Image 1 https://t.co/B2Jl6Jnj4V

    In case you missed it, Google released Gemini 3 this past week. And boy is it awesome. The images it creates — see the tweet above — are completely undetectable as the work of AI, and this is just one particular use case. From an overall sentiment standpoint, it is also amazing to see how quickly things have changed for Google. This past summer, the narrative was that AI was going to kill Google’s golden goose — its search business. But now all of a sudden, it feels like Google is the king of AI.

    I know we all know this, but it’s hard not to keep thinking about how profoundly this is all going to change the global economy. Let’s take real estate development. Development is a future-oriented business. It’s about imagining what the future could be, and then going out and trying to create it. Because of this, I think you could also describe it as an industry of visual persuasion. Renderings, photos, diagrams, and many other tools are used to sell a specific kind of future.

    In the olden days, these tools used to cost a lot of money, especially if you were preparing for something like a condominium sales launch. When it came to renderings, we used to have to book the best companies months in advance, and then once work actually started, it would take several weeks of iteration before the final renderings were ready. In parallel to this, you’d also be working on your photography. And because no developer wants to photograph dormant winter trees and sidewalks shellacked in road salt, you also needed to carefully plan ahead for when you’d be taking these.

    Then, once you had all your visuals ready, you sent them off to the printers, so that sales brochures and other marketing collateral could be physically printed. It’s a long and expensive process. Of course, AI collapses this entire workflow. It dramatically reduces both time and cost (down to an almost zero marginal cost), and opens up a world of unlimited visual possibilities. Want a photograph of a couple walking in New York City in the snow during Christmas? Done.

    So what does this mean for development and all of the service providers who help to visualize projects into existence? In my view, it means the low-value-add ones go away. AI easily replaces them. But for the high-value ones who bring incredible creative direction to projects, I think they get better and become even more important. AI is creative rocket fuel. But you still need someone who can direct, who has taste, and who can decide what story the project should tell.

    Cover photo by Serhii Hanushchak on Unsplash

  • Stop blaming. Start building.

    November 20, 2025 · View original

    I recently started reading Marginal Revolution. This recent post, called “Illegal Immigrants Didn’t Break the Housing Market; Bad Policy Did,” covers many of the things that we talk about on this blog:

    > If “fixing” housing scarcity means blaming whichever group is politically convenient, you end up cycling through targets: illegal immigrants first, then legal immigrants (as Canada has done), then the children of immigrants, then wealthy buyers, then racial or religious minorities. Indeed, one wonders if the blame is the goal.

    > If you actually want to solve the problem of housing scarcity, stop the scapegoating and start supporting the disliked people who are actually working to reduce scarcity: the developers. Loosen zoning and cut the rules that choke what can be built. Redirect political energy away from trying to demolish imagined enemies and instead build, baby, build.

    As a developer, I naturally chose the most self-serving excerpt to quote, but that doesn’t mean that what Alex Tabarrok wrote is incorrect. Blame is, of course, the goal. Such is the reality of politics. Here’s another excerpt, this one from one of Howard Mark’s investing memos:

    > I’ve always gotten a kick out of oxymorons — phrases that are internally contradictory — such as “jumbo shrimp” and “common sense.” I’ll add “political reality” to the list. The world of politics has its own, altered reality, in which economic reality often seems not to impinge. No choices need to be made: candidates can promise it all. And there are no consequences. If something might have negative consequences in the real world, politicians seem to feel free to ignore them.

    This is why immigrants are blamed, foreign buyers are banned, rent freezes are proposed (counterproductive), and we continue to do very little to actually fix traffic congestion in our cities, among an endless list of other things. The real solutions are simply too politically inconvenient; it’s more advantageous to blame scapegoats.

    Meanwhile, our problems persist.

    I woke up this morning to an email from one of our partners with a link to this article talking about a three-storey, 10-unit housing project (plus garden suite) that was just refused by the Committee of Adjustment here in Toronto. It’s five minutes from a major subway station. Why?

    Because it’s always easier to blame someone else.

    Cover photo by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash

  • Is this really the end of urbanism?

    November 19, 2025 · View original

    Ben Thompson is an American technology analyst who writes a widely read newsletter called Stratechery. He also used to live in Taipei, where he lived continuously for 12 years.

    But this past summer he moved back to Wisconsin, trading his urban life for a suburban one. And so his latest article starts with a more personal note, talking about what it’s like to return to the US (though the larger point of the post is the intersection of robotaxis and suburbia).

    I spent a summer in Taipei in my early 20’s and grew to love the place after the first few weeks, and so I was expecting his re-acclimation to have been a bit more jarring. But it turns out, Ben is happy to be back and, in particular, he’s happy to be back living in the suburbs.

    His post even goes on to question whether the mobility transformations we are seeing today might be about to cement some kind of “end to urbanism”:

    > What is worth considering, however, is if the last wave of urbanism, which started in the 1990s and peaked in the 2010s, might be the last, at least in the United States (Asia and its massive metropolises are another story). The potential physical transformation in transportation and delivery I am talking about is simply completing the story that started with entertainment and television in the first wave of suburbia, and then information and interactivity via the Internet, particularly since COVID. There are real benefits to being in person, just like there are to living in the city, but the relative delta to working remote or living in the suburbs has decreased dramatically; meanwhile, offices and urban living can never match the advantages inherent to working from a big home with a big yard. > > Whether or not this is good thing is a separate discussion; I will say it has been good for me, and it’s poised to get even better.

    I grew up in the suburbs of Toronto. I initially made the mistake of going to university in Waterloo, but I immediately started to envy my friends who were living downtown and going to the University of Toronto. So I course-corrected and transferred.

    When it came time to go to grad school, I had learned my lesson: a proper urban center was a non-negotiable item. So I moved to Philadelphia and absolutely fell in love with the city’s walkability, historic scale, and nightlife. It also didn’t hurt that I could take a Chinatown bus to Manhattan for $10.

    In fact, when I temporarily returned to the suburbs of Toronto after school — before once again moving into the city — I vividly remember missing Philly. I missed its urbanity. I missed walking everywhere. It was either that, or I just missed the good old “special” at Bob and Barbara’s on South Street.

    Since moving back to Toronto after school, I have yet to live beyond the confines of High Park, St. Clair Avenue, and the Don River. Maybe one day I will, or maybe I won’t. The oldest parts of our city have always felt the most like home to me.

    Sure, I also have a deep love for the mountains, but when I daydream about places where I could really live, my mind always goes to big cities like Paris, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro (city and mountains!).

    I’m not here to impose my views (just write about them). We all have our lifestyle preferences. And I can appreciate that, for many, like Ben, the suburbs offer a compelling value proposition. His view is also supported by history: new technologies do often have a decentralizing effect on cities.

    Cover photo by TangChi Lee on Unsplash

  • We need pipelines to build a post-oil Canada

    November 18, 2025 · View original

    I’m not sure that oil is Canada’s only economic hard power, but it has to be our largest:

    > “To effectively use oil, Canada’s only economic hard power, Carney needs to get not just one, but two pipelines built,” said Adam Waterous, chief executive of Calgary’s Waterous Energy Fund, a major oil sands investor.

    It’s hard to imagine a more strategically important investment for Canada. Right now, virtually all of Canada’s oil exports go to the US. That gives us zero leverage. We are price takers! To correct this, we need to diversify our customer base. And the only way we do that is by building pipelines to our coastlines and then selling to the rest of the world.

    But beyond shoring up our economy, I’d argue that this is also the way we accelerate decarbonization. Here’s the plan: We get rich, and then reinvest the profits into renewable energy, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, and critical nation-building infrastructure like housing, transport, and education.

    Oil and gas profits won’t last forever. This is about building for that future.

    Cover photo by Chris Liverani on Unsplash

  • Salt Lake is at that point in the development cycle

    November 17, 2025 · View original

    Real estate may be local, but a lot of markets appear to be correlated. I felt that way this past summer when I was meeting with developers in Paris and I continue to feel this way when I read articles about other markets. Here’s a recent one from Building Salt Lake talking about the state of Utah’s multi-family market.

    Based on the article, cap rates appear to be in the mid-4s for newish product, which is too low right now:

    > Investors aren’t jumping at the 4.6 cap deals they can typically find in Utah today, she added, when they could get over 5.5 in other major markets. > > “Salt Lake, a 4.6 cap, I personally think it’s a little mispriced relative to where else we can put our money,” Schultz said.

    This means that there aren’t the asset trades to support new development. To justify ground-up development, developers need to see a positive spread between their development yield and the exit cap — one that compensates them for the additional risk of construction. If that spread isn’t there, or if it’s unclear what it might actually be, development shuts off.

    Rents and values coming down also doesn’t help:

    > Back in 2022, which was the peak of the market, you could underwrite double-digit rent growth on a typical 250-apartment deal Downtown. Now, he said, “we’re seeing that effective rents down about 8.25%.”

    > Overall multifamily values are down 26%, King said, though he added that’s not indicative of every single project or every deal. He also said that decline came after four years of record supply and double-digit rent growth.

    What should be clear from these excerpts is that Salt Lake City is not at the point in the cycle where developers are jumping to deliver new ground-up multi-family product. They’re at the point in the cycle where firms are looking and hoping to buy distressed assets below replacement cost.

    Cover photo by Saul Flores on Unsplash

  • The median age of all US homebuyers is now 59 years old

    November 16, 2025 · View original

    Yesterday morning, my dad sent me the above chart from Apollo and said, “frightening, do you have one for Canada?” In 2010, the median age (not mean) of all US homebuyers was 39 years old. Today, it is 59 years old. And it has jumped significantly since the start of the pandemic.

    The obvious explanation, and long-term trend line, is that housing continues to become more expensive relative to incomes, so it is taking longer for people to save up and afford to buy.

    But “first-time buyers waiting longer” can’t be the only reason, because homeownership is typically a life-cycle behavior. If you’re in your 60s and you still haven’t made the decision to buy a home, the probability is low that you will then become a first-time buyer.

    As of this month, the share of first-time homebuyers in the US dropped to a record low of 21% and the median age was 40. What this suggests is that the above chart must also be the result of a compositional change in buyers.

    Wealthy older people must be buying vacation homes, retirement homes, and/or relocating (maybe for better weather and maybe for lower taxes). Combine this with fewer first-time buyers (and I’m sure some other factors), and you get the above chart.

    So what about Canada?

    I couldn’t find an exact equivalent chart, but I did find this Bank of Canada note from 2022.

    As of 2021, first-time buyers still accounted for roughly half of all home purchases in Canada. The rest were repeat buyers, and the smallest percentage were investors, which includes people buying a property as an investment or buying a property to live in while at the same time converting an existing residence into an investment property.

    The median age for a first-time buyer was 36 years and the average age for all other buyers was 50 years. If we assume that this split is roughly 50/50, based on the above chart, then we get to an average homebuyer age somewhere around 43 years old. Intuitively, this seems at least directionally right.

    (Note, this data is from 2021, which misses most of the pandemic period.)

    Canada has a much higher percentage of first-time buyers driving the market. Canada does not have the same wealth inequality as the US. The 55+ age group in the US owns somewhere around 71% of all housing wealth and 69% of all stocks/equity funds.

    And, Canadians tend to be less mobile than the US population within the country. Canada doesn’t have warm, low-tax provinces attracting older rich people (though I would support us having one or two somehow).

    In summary: You’re right, dad, it is a frightening trend line.

    Cover photo by Valeriia Neganova on Unsplash