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.

  • Laneway house zoning variances

    We received the list of required zoning variances for Mackay Laneway House last week and they have been posted to the Globizen blog

    As is said in the post, we have requested clarification on a few items and we will be resubmitting the drawings to address some of the notices. 

    But I still think it’s great to get this information out in the public. It’s the sort of thing that usually doesn’t get published and I know there’s a lot of interest in laneway housing in the city right now. If you haven’t already, please consider signing your name at lanewaylove.com.

    It is, however, a fairly esoteric post. So if this is not your bag, ignore this post and check back tomorrow. Regular scheduled programming will resume then.

  • Hey Los Angeles

    Los Angeles is a city that I have been indoctrinated to dislike. It sprawls and it’s car-oriented. But every time I visit I think to myself: This place is awesome.

    I’m going to be in LA and Palm Springs this weekend catching up with a good friend, looking at architecture, taking photos, and escaping spring allergy season. 

    I don’t know the city very well, so if any of you have recommendations for things I need to see or do, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.

    Also, if you’re in town and you think we should meet about design, real estate, startups, photography or something else, definitely drop me a line.

  • From Tokyo to Toronto — annual property survey

    This month’s issue (May 2017) of Monocle magazine is a special “design & property” edition. It includes their annual property survey (shown above), which showcases interesting projects and people from around the world.

    I was excited (but not surprised) to read the editor’s letter at the beginning of the issue and learn that the Monocle folks “think all the time” about launching their own property company. I would love to see how they execute on a development project, because I am sure it would question conventional norms.

    Ian Gillespie of Westbank (headquartered in Vancouver) is featured and interviewed under the heading: “a more beautiful city.” Here you’ll hear him say that they build Porsches and not Fords. I also learned that they acquired a district energy company called Creative Energy, which they are looking to bring to Toronto and Seattle.

    Because it’s a property issue, the ads are also tailored to that, so you get a good cross section of international projects. This morning was my first time seeing One Park Drive in Canary Wharf – London’s first residential tower by Herzog & de Meuron.

    So if design and property also happen to be your jam, you may want to pick up the May issue of Monocle.

  • Free money for everyone

    The idea of providing everyone with an unconditional “basic income” is a popular topic these days – though it’s clearly not a new idea. I know many people today who think it is positively inevitable. At some point in the foreseeable future, inequality will reach such extreme levels that we will discover the need to give everyone free money, without any strings attached to it.

    Below is a TEDx talk by Rutger Bregman where he explains why this is what we should be doing. One of his examples is a study that was done in London where they gave a group of homeless people free money. What they discovered was that they didn’t just go out and buy alcohol and drugs, which is what some of you may be thinking. They did positive things with it. They became empowered.

    If you can’t see the video below, click here.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIL_Y9g7Tg0?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  • The 0.1%

    City Observatory recently published a post called, The 0.1 percent solution: Inclusionary zoning’s fatal scale problem

    I recognize the political attractiveness of this land use policy, but I’ve always been skeptical about its effectiveness. 

    Here’s an excerpt from the post:

    “While inclusionary zoning gets top mention as a preferred policy by many affordable housing advocates, there’s precious little evidence that its ever had more than a token effect on the size of the housing affordability problem in any city. In addition, because inclusionary zoning requirements essentially shift the cost of housing subsidies onto new development, they raise its cost, and likely reduce the number of units that get built–which tends to aggravate housing shortages and further accelerate prices.”

    Sadly, I think that many housing policies tend to be more about optics, than about impact. There’s rarely such thing as a free lunch.

  • The value of relative pricing comparisons

    I find the topic of pricing incredibly interesting. How much is someone willing to pay for item X? I’ve said this before, but pricing was one of my favorite classes in business school.

    Here is a line that I really liked from a recent blog post by Tomasz Tunguz’s on price anchoring:

    “Relative pricing comparisons are among the most common method of price rationalization.”

    The topic of his post may not be all that interesting to this audience – it’s about software as service platforms – but the principles should be. 

    In Tomasz’s post he talks about how companies building SaaS products aimed at salespeople will often have their pricing compared to that of Salesforce. In other words, people might say to themselves: Salesforce costs $X per seat. Is this other product worth half of $X? Salesforce is the anchor.

    I can tell you that I do this all the time. (Do you?) I’ll say to myself, condos of this build quality are selling for $Y in this neighborhood. Is this other neighborhood better or worse? If better, how much of a premium might someone apply to it?

    So if you’re in the business of pricing products, you may want to give some thought to how your customers might be anchored when assessing your offering. Relative pricing comparisons allow us to rationalize dollars in our mind.

  • Building a city from the internet up

    There has been a lot of exciting tech + urbanism news this week in Toronto. Uber announced that it’s building a new artificial intelligence team in the city and it came out that Sidewalk Labs (Alphabet company) had responded to an RFP put out by Waterfront Toronto. 

    The RFP, which closed at the end of last month, was to find an “innovation and funding partner” for the 12-acre Quayside precinct shown above in purple. It’s the first parcel of the “eastern waterfront.” (Click here if you’d like to download a copy of the actual Request for Proposal.)

    These days, it’s easy to be cynical about these sorts of announcements. Every day you hear about some new innovation center or tech hub. But what’s perhaps unique about this one is that Sidewalk Labs is thinking crazier than most and they have the financial backing that crazy sometimes needs.

    If you’re not at all familiar with Sidewalk Labs, I suggest you read this post about how the company wants to build cities “from the internet up.” It’s by their CEO, Daniel L. Doctoroff. 

    Not surprisingly, they are thinking about everything from automated trash systems and autonomous vehicles (including their impact on built form, cost of living, productivity, etc.) to exchange-based thermal grids and more cost effective construction methods. And it’s not just about the technology. It’s about marrying tech + urbanism.

    Also interesting is their model of setting up a “hyper-focused labs”, which are each run by entrepreneurs-in-residence. These internal labs are focused on things like housing affordability, the health challenges faced by low-income city residents, and so on. 

    It’s all very exciting. So let’s ensure this moves forward and let’s hope Sidewalk Labs keeps thinking crazy. Toronto is ready to lead and show the world how a city built from the internet up should perform.

  • We’re working with superkül

    Today I am excited to announce that we are working with superkül architects on a new mid-rise condo project here in Toronto. Details about the site and project to follow.

    I am excited about this for a few reasons.

    It should go without saying that I love their work. Check out Compass House, SHIFT Cottage, Harbord Towns, and Oben Flats Queen East.

    You may also notice that they work at a variety of different scales and have a lot of single-family / custom home work. This was important to us because one of our goals for this project is to create really great homes within a boutique building. Emphasis on home.

    The other exciting piece is that one of the founding principals of superkül – Meg Graham – was one of my professors in architecture school. So there’s a sense of coming full circle.

    This matters to me because when I became a developer I told myself that I was going to be the kind of developer that gave a shit about design and actively worked to improve the built environment.

    I guess what I’m saying is that there’s a feeling of continuity. I haven’t forgotten where I came from, which was the world of architecture.

    Image: Blok Design

  • Powerhouse: A case study in neighborhood infill

    Dezeen recently featured the above project in Philadelphia by Interface Studio Architects. It’s called Powerhouse and the goal was to provide a variety of different housing typologies and tenures within a dense infill project that, at the same time, remains in keeping with its context.

    The full block complex contains 31 residential units, which are a mixture of apartments, duplexes (stacked towns), live/work units, and single-family townhouses. There’s also a corner retail space. 10 of the units are rental and the balance are for sale. The development also incorporates 3 existing rowhouses on the block. (Were these the holdouts?)

    Here is a diagram from ISA to give you a sense of how these different housing types come together:

    The project feels germane to Philly’s urban fabric and it is certainly interesting in its own right. But for those of us from Toronto, it’s perhaps even more interesting because it’s a scale of infill development that we don’t see very often in this city: low-rise intensification. (Also commonly referred to as “The Missing Middle”.)

    Recently I’ve been speaking with a number of people about whether or not Toronto should be thinking differently about its low-rise neighborhoods. Because as it stands today, even this sort of gentle density can cause quite a stir

    Two thoughts immediately come to mind – one of which will not surprise anyone who reads this blog. Firstly, I see laneway housing as an elegant way to intensify low-rise neighborhoods without changing their character. That’s why I’m proposing this house.

    Secondly, I have long felt that we should rethink how we treat arterial roads that are not designated as “Avenues.” That is, we should encourage greater densities. An “Avenue” designation signals mid-rise. But absent this, our policies are frankly retrograde, given the way some of these arterial streets have evolved over the years.

    What are your thoughts about this scale of infill?

    Images: ISA

  • Data is the new oil

    “A NEW commodity spawns a lucrative, fast-growing industry, prompting antitrust regulators to step in to restrain those who control its flow. A century ago, the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns are being raised by the giants that deal in data, the oil of the digital era.“

    The Economist just penned an interesting piece arguing that the world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data. That’s why the five most valuable publicly traded companies in the world are all tech/data companies.

    But the point they are really making is that current antitrust remedies are poorly suited to this new precious commodity. For example, in today’s world authorities need to be thinking not just about firm size, but about the extent of their data collection.

    There’s a reason firms with no (meaningful) revenue get acquired for huge numbers. Yes, sometimes it’s just for the talent. But it’s also because of the data they control and the potential threat they pose.

    So much of what we do today leaves a digital trace. And those traces are hugely valuable. I suspect we will be hearing more about this as the data economy continues to spawn tech giants.