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

  • Winning and losing at the same time

    October 16, 2025 · View original

    The Globe and Mail just published this article about Canada’s real estate markets. It’s behind a paywall, but if you’re able to access it, you’ll find 10 housing charts. The first is called “Winners and losers,” and what it shows is the percentage change in CREA’s home price index since February 2022 — which, in hindsight, was the top of the market. (I don’t know what the end date is for this data, though.)

    The first thing you’ll see is that, very broadly, there’s Southern Ontario and Greater Vancouver, and then the rest of Canada. Prices have fallen materially in Canada’s most expensive markets, whereas in cities like Calgary, Saskatoon, and Moncton, nominal home prices are up by double-digit percentages. There isn’t just one Canadian market.

    The other thing I found interesting is the title “Winners and losers,” because it reminded me of the great paradox of modern housing policy. And by this I mean: which cities are winning and which are losing? If you already own a home, then winning is positive price appreciation. But if you don’t already own a home and you’d like to in the future, well then, falling home prices is winning — they’ve just become more affordable.

    Not surprisingly, it’s hard solving for two opposing kinds of winning.

  • How to eat healthier

    October 15, 2025 · View original

    A few weeks ago, my wife told me about an app called Yuka. What it does is scan the barcodes of food products and cosmetics and then give you a health rating out of 100. You can also drill deeper if you’d like to better understand why a particular food item is healthy — or not healthy.

    Since then, a few things have happened:

    – I’ve told as many people as possible about it. (I have my parents scanning at the grocery store.) – Grocery shopping takes a lot longer. (I have a colleague who has been mistaken for a store employee while using the app.) – We’ve made meaningful changes to the food we buy.

    And it’s not like we weren’t trying to shop healthy before.

    It works a lot like France’s Nutri-Score, except you have to do a bit more work. As soon as I see a low score, I no longer want the product and I move on to an alternative or I eschew it altogether. I can only imagine the positive impact that an app like this will have on our health and on the broader food landscape as our individual decisions compound over time.

    It also feels like a perfect use case for augmented reality and spatial computing. Right now, I have to juggle my phone in one hand and a basket in the other. But imagine a world where I can just pick up a package of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and my glasses will automatically tell me they’re a 0/100. That world is coming.

    If you care about the food you put into your body, I would highly recommend downloading Yuka on your phone. Ignorance is bliss until you’re no longer ignorant.

  • US cancels largest solar project in North America — why?

    October 14, 2025 · View original

    Data centers require electricity.

    And as we have talked about before, total electricity consumption by US data centers is forecasted to reach somewhere between 6.7 – 12% of total consumption by 2028 (figure from the US Department of Energy). Last year, Goldman Sachs also estimated that data center power demand would grow 160% by 2030.

    I kind of wonder if these numbers might be understated — given our current AI bubble — but whatever the case may be, we’re going to need a lot more electricity going forward. There’s no such thing as a wealthy, low-energy nation.

    Given all of this, I’m struggling to understand why the US would move to cancel what would have been the largest solar project in North America. Esmeralda 7, which was to be located on 62,300 acres of federal land to the north-west of Las Vegas, was expected to be a 6.2 gigawatt project — enough to power nearly 2 million homes.

    Instead, the Department of the Interior seems to be determined to accelerate fossil fuel projects, and help China maintain its clear dominance in renewables. I guess that makes sense in some world if you think renewal energy projects are a “scam.”

    Cover photo by American Public Power Association on Unsplash

  • Canada needs immigration because we don’t make enough babies

    October 13, 2025 · View original

    In the second quarter of this year, Canada saw its population grow by about 0.1% compared to the first quarter. This is not zero, but it’s close to it — the slowest second-quarter growth since 1946 (excluding the pandemic in 2020).

    Since World War II, Canada has generally been pro-immigration. It started as being explicitly Eurocentric, but later we adopted a point system which granted admission based on skills, education, and language ability rather than race or nationality. In other words, it became a meritocracy, and multiculturalism became policy.

    This approach served the country well, fueling economic prosperity and creating Canada’s only truly global city: Toronto. Immigrants are good for the economy, and Toronto is majority foreign born. They are more likely to start a business, more likely to obtain a patent, and their children tend to outperform native-born children academically.

    It is also not lost on me that I wouldn’t have been born in Toronto, and I wouldn’t have the life that I have today if it weren’t for these immigration policies.

    Of course, in recent years, public opinion on immigration shifted dramatically. There was, and is, a real sense that it was too much of a good thing. Canada wasn’t keeping up when it came to housing, healthcare, and overall public infrastructure. So the federal government responded, and now the expectation is that population growth in Canada should stay at or near zero until around 2028.

    Because remember, Canada has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. In 2024, it dropped to 1.25 children per woman, placing us firmly in the “ultra-low fertility” category, alongside Switzerland, Italy, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, and others. Without immigration, we shrink. And we all know what that has meant for countries like Japan, which has had periods of prolonged economic stagnation.

    So sooner or later, Canada will need to get back into the business of competing for talent and welcoming the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world to our cities. This is where we want the world to be starting their new businesses. In the meantime, it also wouldn’t hurt if we started having more sex and making more babies.

    Looking ahead, if 2028 does end up being the year when immigration ramps back up, it will actually align with what I am predicting to be the start of a severe housing shortage — at least in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. That means we need to act now to start delivering more affordable urban housing at scale.

    All through history, the success of global cities has hinged on their ability to take in a large number of immigrants and make them economically productive. It’s what made cities like Toronto and New York what they are today. But in order for this to happen, people need a place to live.

    Cover photo by Ankush Nath Sehgal on Unsplash

  • Los Angeles is trying to go from car-first to transit-first

    October 12, 2025 · View original

    The largest urban region in the US, New York, is famously urban. Recently, we talked about how it has the highest share of zero-vehicle households and really stands on its own when it comes to US cities. But what about the country’s second-largest urban region — Los Angeles?

    It probably won’t surprise you that around 88% of households in this city own a car. Transit and other forms of non-car mobility remain deeply entrenched secondary options for most. But what you may not be aware of are all the initiatives that LA is undertaking to transform itself into more of a transit-first region.

    The city opened its first metro line in 1993. Today, it has a system that spans over 109 miles (~175 kilometers) across six lines with 107 stations. It also has wildly successful bus rapid transit (BRT) lines, with ridership levels that are 3x initial projections. The 18-mile Orange Line is viewed as one of, if not the, most successful bus lines in the US.

    In parallel, the city is doing what it needs to do on the land-use side by easing density restrictions and working to intensify around its transit stations. It also has a little extra motivation: Los Angeles has vowed to make the 2028 Summer Olympic Games a “transit-first” event. And with 15+ million visitors expected, there’s going to be no other way to do it.

    Los Angeles has long been known as a car-first city, but don’t be surprised if that changes this century.

    For more on this topic, here’s a recent article by Joseph Shortell, a Senior Analyst at Philadelphia-based Econsult Solutions.

    Cover photo by Studio Trista on Unsplash

  • An alternative explanation for America’s surge in pedestrian deaths

    October 11, 2025 · View original

    The number of pedestrians killed in the US each year has increased 78% since 2009:

    This comes after decades of steady decline, causing many to wonder: What the hell is going on?

    Brian Potter of Construction Physics recently tried to answer this question, here. Perhaps the two most common theories are that (1) bigger cars have become more popular (and bigger cars are more deadly to pedestrians), and (2) people are increasingly distracted by smartphones.

    In his view, the SUV theory is maybe supportable, but the evidence is mixed. Pedestrian deaths involving smaller cars like Honda Civics are also up substantially. So it doesn’t seem to be just that.

    As for the smartphone theory, Potter cites data showing that traffic accidents rarely report “distracted” driving. I call bullshit. I suspect it’s because drivers don’t want to admit they were scrolling through TikTok; but even then, it doesn’t appear to be the clear cause. Smartphones are global, and yet this surge in pedestrian deaths is a uniquely American problem (based on other data from Potter).

    So what is it?

    My view — and this isn’t mentioned in the article — is that built form must be a factor. Much of it comes down to how we design our cities. Intuitively, this makes sense to me. But there’s also data to support it. First, if we look at pedestrian deaths per capita, there’s a clear bias toward the South and West, both of which tend to have more car-oriented urban patterns compared to the older cities in the North.

    Second, if you drill down into specific urban environments — including those adopting strong Vision Zero policies — you’ll see that local trends don’t always match what we’re seeing nationally or even at the state level. For example, in recent years, cities like New York have become much safer for pedestrians:

    > New York City continues to defy national trends around pedestrian deaths, which are currently at a four-decade high nationwide. Traffic fatalities were down in four of the five major travel modes the DOT tracks. Compared to 2013—the last year before implementation of Vision Zero—New York City traffic deaths have dropped by 14.7%, from 299 that year. Pedestrian deaths have decreased by 35.9% compared to 2013 figures. Cyclist fatalities were also down for the third straight year (17 in 2022, down from a 20-year high of 28 in 2019), declining even as bicycle ridership has soared in recent years.

    So my simple theory is this: Human-scaled spaces that are designed around pedestrians, rather than cars, are less likely to kill pedestrians.

    At the same time, I do think we’ll see pedestrian deaths naturally come down in the US as autonomous vehicles become more widespread. AVs are already better — or at least safer — drivers than humans, and that will help. None of us should be driving cars anymore if you’re just looking at the safety data. But I don’t see that as a good reason not to create more human-scaled spaces. They offer us much more than just safety.

    Diagrams: Construction Physics

  • How Vietnam’s tube housing empowers entrepreneurship

    October 10, 2025 · View original

    Vietnam has a building typology known as tube housing.

    It is characterized by narrow building frontages, often in the range of 3 to 4 meters, and multiple skinny levels. From what I’ve read, tube housing first appeared in the 17th century in cities like Hanoi. Its ubiquity over the years, however, has been aided by a myriad of factors, including Vietnam’s transition from capitalism to socialism. This change meant that far fewer apartment buildings were being constructed, and so households had to take matters into their own hands and build what they could.

    I’ve also read that this building type may have something to do with the way properties were taxed based on their frontage rather than their site area, though I haven’t been able to find a reliable source for this. Whatever the case, the end result is exactly what we discussed in this recent post — The 9-Step Rule: Why Simple, Narrow Buildings Are Good for Cities. Except with these frontages, it wouldn’t even take nine steps if the average building width is closer to 3–4 meters.

    What is equally interesting about this housing type is that it represents a ground-up intervention (as opposed to the result of top-down urban design) and it is highly adaptable. It is not uncommon for additional floors to be added to these tube houses as needs change, and for the ground floors to serve as garages, living rooms, thriving commercial spaces, or as all three at once. It is an entirely flexible space that fuels entrepreneurship and allows households to make money.

    > Tweet: Always interesting how the bottom floor of a Vietnamese tube home can be a garage/living room or family store, sometimes a combination of all three. https://t.co/9DaDhlPCFl

    Just think about how much easier it would be to open your own shop if you already owned the space. Conversely, how many of these ground-floor businesses wouldn’t exist if only there were a single line in the zoning regulations that said: “Nah, sorry, you can’t start and operate your own business here.” That is what I often worry about when it comes to land-use policy: what human potential are we quashing as a result of our decisions?

  • Paris is not a medium-density city

    October 9, 2025 · View original

    Earlier in the week, I came across this tweet about Paris: “Haussmann cracked the code on what makes a beautiful medium-density city. Why is it then that we can’t replicate this all around the world? Genuine question.” This is a topic that is near and dear to this blog, so I thought we should discuss it.

    But before we can answer this question, I think it’s important to ask whether it’s even fair to call Paris a medium-density city. Paris is generally considered to be the densest city in Europe. Most sources peg Paris proper (inside the Boulevard Périphérique) at around 21,000 people per km². However, there are areas that reach over 50,000 people per km², which is dense enough to rival any big megalopolis. So, from my perspective, I would not classify Paris as medium density.

    It’s a high-density city.

    The primary reason why this feature is so often overlooked is likely because the buildings aren’t very tall. People see mid-rise buildings of 6–8 storeys and automatically assume that these must translate into some form of a medium-density city. But this is the height–density fallacy. The two do not necessarily correlate. Paris is an example of a high-density city with mid-rise buildings. But I also can think of many low-density cities with high-rise buildings.

    Another reason I suspect Paris’s high urban density is often missed is that it’s also a highly livable and loved city. It doesn’t feel that dense (even if living spaces are compact and expensive). The term density can also carry negative connotations for some. Paris, high density? It can’t be. But that just helps to prove the point that density is good. You can’t have urban vibrancy without it.

    All of this gets at one part of the answer to our original question. Paris is not more widely replicated because building height is only one aspect of the Parisian model. Paris is not mid-rise buildings transitioning down to single-family houses. Paris is not mid-rise buildings in only designated areas. Paris is mid-rise buildings everywhere — and at very high densities.

    Not every city is prepared to do that. But if you truly want to emulate Paris, then that’s what it will take.

  • More urban homes for young families

    October 8, 2025 · View original

    My internet friend (and fellow Penn alum), Bobby Fijan, is a strong proponent of more family-friendly housing in urban centers. And by strong proponent, I mean that he is both building more family-friendly housing as a developer and publishing thoughtful research on the topic. His most recent project is this study, which surveyed more than 10,000 people, and looked at what it will take to build more urban homes for young families.

    What he and his co-author Lyman Stone found is the following:

    – People who don’t have enough space at home are less likely to have children. – Apartments are a growing share of new housing in the US, but they are becoming increasingly less family friendly. – Americans are willing to pay more in rent per square foot for the same amount of space if there are more bedrooms. – Developers are not properly accounting for the higher vacancy and turnover associated with smaller apartments (especially in the current market environment). – Cities could increase the number of family-friendly apartments if they did things like exempt them from FAR calculations, accelerate approvals/permitting, and so on.

    This is a topic that I feel similarly about. I am an urbanist and I believe that cities are at their best when they provide for every generation and demographic segment. It’s also not a new topic for cities like Toronto.

    But I do think cities like Toronto and Vancouver are a bit unique. If you look at some of the floor plan examples in the report, you’ll find one-bedroom apartments at 750 square feet and two-bedroom apartments at 1,100 square feet. Part of the thinking is that these floor plans could accommodate additional bedrooms in order to make them more family friendly (and it would be accretive to developers based on the above finding).

    But by Toronto standards, these would be very generous apartments. At 750 sf, it is likely the apartment would already have 2 bedrooms and possibly even a den/office. The reason for this is that affordability has been strained for a long time in this city, and the market responded with shrinkflation. Every square foot has already been optimized.

    So if we truly want to encourage more family-friendly apartments, I believe that we are going to need to change the cost structure underpinning the development of these homes. In other words, we need to make them cheaper to build so that more families can afford a bit more space. The way you start to do this is by doing some of the things listed in the last point above and by reducing added taxes and levies.

  • The 9-step rule: Why simple, narrow buildings are good for cities

    October 7, 2025 · View original

    > Tweet: This is a scale and rhythm that positively contributes to cities, but that is far to difficult to develop in many places. We should change that. #globizen https://t.co/TBziySWLzw

    I tweeted this yesterday (please forgive the grammar mistake).

    What it shows is a bunch of narrow urban properties ranging, for the most part, from 5 to 7 storeys. Some of them are old buildings, and some are new. Regardless, the point I wanted to make was that this is a scale and rhythm of building that does wonders for cities. They’re dense, they have a compact footprint, and they promote urban vibrancy.

    And yet, it’s a building type that is far too difficult to develop in many cities. It is not always the case, but oftentimes the only way to underwrite these kinds of projects is to make them ultra high-end. That’s a shame. So let’s talk about this a little more, starting with what makes this urban pattern so appealing.

    One key thing that narrow lots and narrow retail frontages do is increase the number of destinations within walking distance. This promotes visual interest by always showing you something new.

    At the same time, there are numerous economic benefits to this urban pattern. Smaller shops lower the barrier to entry for small businesses and allow greater adaptability. Change is able to happen faster, and if one or two businesses happen to turnover on a street, it’s not the end of the world.

    One way I like to think of this is in terms of shops per step.

    For example, let’s assume that the average walking speed is 4 km/hour and that, as a starting point, fine-grained urbanism translates into storefronts that are around 6 m wide. This would mean the average person walking on a street would see a new shop (or retail frontage) about every 9 steps.

    If we instead assume a retail frontage of something like 30 m (which is five times our original 6 m), then the average person would need approximately 43 steps for every shop. This is a meaningful difference that fundamentally changes the character of a street. If you’ve ever walked on a great main street, you know this, even if you’ve never explicitly acknowledged it.

    But this is only the ground floor. The other benefit of these simple, straight-up infills is that they also bring homes and offices to the same compact footprint. Density is good. It is a prerequisite for urban vibrancy. And it can be achieved simply. Strip away the facade ornament from the building examples in my tweet, and these are extruded boxes with no stepbacks to speak of.

    This used to be how many (or most) cities built fabric buildings at scale, but for many reasons, we forgot how. One of the reasons is that we’ve generally made building things more onerous, and that means developers need bigger and bigger projects to justify the costs.

    But it’s clear our desire to experience human-scaled environments hasn’t changed. So I reckon it’s about time to bring back the skinny extruded boxes.

    Cover photo by Praewthida K on Unsplash