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

  • Steven Ballmer launches USAFacts

    Steven Ballmer – the former CEO of Microsoft and current owner of the LA Clippers – has just launched a website called USAFacts. 

    He describes it as a 10-K for the US government. Put differently, it is a non-partisan website offering a “data-driven portrait of the American population, our government’s finances, and government’s impact on society.” It provides a complete look at revenue and spending across federal, state, and local governments.

    There is no commercial motive behind the website and Ballmer has been quoted in the New York Times saying that he’s “happy to fund the damn thing” whether it ends up being 3, 4, or even 5 million a year.

    I love good data and in this current era of “fake news”, I think these sorts of initiatives are exactly what we need.

  • Autonomous vehicles are the new big box store

    I would like to pull out one more idea from Derek Thompson’s article, What in the World Is Causing the Retail Meltdown of 2017? It is this prediction that self-driving cars could maybe become the new retail store:

    “Once autonomous vehicles are cheap, safe, and plentiful, retail and logistics companies could buy up millions, seeing that cars can be stores and streets are the ultimate real estate. In fact, self-driving cars could make shopping space nearly obsolete in some areas. CVS could have hundreds of self-driving minivans stocked with merchandise roving the suburbs all day and night, ready to be summoned to somebody’s home by smartphone. A new luxury-watch brand in 2025 might not spring for an Upper East Side storefront, but maybe its autonomous showroom vehicle could circle the neighborhood, waiting to be summoned to the doorstep of a tony apartment building. Autonomous retail will create new conveniences and traffic headaches, require new regulations, and inspire new business strategies that could take even more businesses out of commercial real estate. The future of retail could be even weirder yet.”

    It’s an interesting idea. And perhaps not as far fetched as it may seem. Delivery timelines are constantly being compressed. And as the purchasing data gets better, it may be possible to anticipate sales before they even happen such that you’re minimizing the amount of unsold product being hauled around.

    I’m going to end here because it’s now time for some Raptors playoff basketball. But what are your thoughts?

  • The importance of shareable experiences for retail

    image

    There is no shortage of articles talking about the disruption currently taking place in the retail space. Just this past weekend the New York Times wrote: Is American Retail at a Historic Tipping Point? With nine U.S. retailers filing for bankruptcy protection in the first three months of 2017 alone, one could certainly make this argument.

    The obvious explanation is the shift to online shopping. Mobile spending now also makes up > 20% of total digital dollars spent. But you already knew that. Nothing new here. Perhaps less trite is one of the explanations that Derek Thompson offers up in this Atlantic article: Americans are spending less on material possessions and more on meals and experiences with friends.

    Take a look at this FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) chart taken from the article:

    image

    According to Thompson, spending at “food services and drinking places” has grown twice as fast as all other retail spending since 2005. Americans now spend more money in bars and restaurants than they do in grocery stores. Last year was the first year that happened.

    But the possible reason behind all of this is arguably the most interesting: young people are looking for ways to create great social media content. And going out for gluten-free dinners with friends and traveling to Tulum “with bae” are clearly far better fodder for that than scouring the sale racks at J.C. Penney. 

    Social media is redirecting discretionary income. This is our new reality. Whether you’re a city builder or a retailer, you must now ask yourself: How shareable is the experience that I am trying to create? 

  • Current state of renewable energy

    image

    The United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance recently published a report covering global trends in the renewable energy space for 2017. 

    Here are some of their key findings:

    – 2016 was a record year in terms of renewable power capacity installed worldwide. This includes wind, solar, biomass and waste-to-energy, geothermal, small hydro, and marine sources.

    – The share of global electricity generated from renewable sources rose from 10.3% (2015) to 11.3% (2016).

    – However, overall investment in renewables declined in 2016 for two main reasons. Costs went down (good news). And China and Japan exhibited a dramatic slowdown in terms of investment activity (bad news).

    – Acquisitions of renewal assets, such as wind farms and solar parks, hit a new peak at $72.7 billion.

    – A number of promising new pricing records set in 2016: $29.10 per MWh for solar in Chile and $30 per MWh for onshore wind in Morocco.

    – In one year, the cost of solar generation dropped on average about 17% and onshore wind dropped about 18%.

  • Toronto real estate is out of control

    You can’t have an Easter dinner in Toronto right now without somebody bringing up the topic of our “crazy” real estate market. 

    Below is a chart from Bloomberg showing the year-over-year change in home prices in the Greater Toronto Area since 1990. It also shows the historical average (in blue) and how in March 2017 we hit 4 standard deviations above that. Home prices rose 33% in March compared to a year earlier.

    If I were a realtor, I’d probably tell you that the market is hot hot hot. Now is the time to sell because you’ll get some absurd number above your asking price and now is the time to buy because prices are going nowhere but up. Don’t miss out. 

    I would like to try and be a bit more nuanced than that. Here are 3 thoughts:

    1)

    There’s no question that low rates / cheap money is one of the root causes of the real estate valuations we are seeing today. But frankly I have no idea when or if that will change. There is an interesting argument out there that capital is no longer scarce. Our economy is going through a fundamental shift, which is why real estate is not the only asset class seeing these sorts of valuations and growth figures.

    2)

    There are a number of global factors which are helping to cement Toronto’s position as an alpha global city and destination for human capital. Think Trump, Brexit, and so on. I agree with Richard Florida’s argument that our real estate market will see more – not less – pressure going forward. Here is a snippet from a recent interview with Florida in Toronto Life:

    I think Toronto is going to get an even bigger influx of the creative class. With the rise of Trumpism, more and more people who might otherwise have gone to the United States are going to come to Canada. We’re going to see American tech companies invest more and more in Toronto. And if we think the housing affordability and economic divide we see today is bad, it’s going to grow ever more gaping. 

    3)

    I believe that there are always opportunities in the real estate space, but that you have to be disciplined, focused on fundamentals, and willing to do things that others won’t. What bothers me is when I hear people say things like: “Real estate only goes up. You can never go wrong.” I started my career pre-2008 and lived in both the United States and Ireland. I saw what down looks like.

  • We are all being manipulated by behavioral economics

    Ever notice how whenever you’re taking an Uber the driver usually gets another fare just before he (Uber drivers are overwhelmingly male) is about to drop you off? That’s on purpose.

    Earlier this month the New York Times published an interactive feature describing how Uber uses behavioral economics (or psychological tricks) to encourage its drivers to work longer, take more fares, and so on.

    Here’s a quick sidebar note about behavioral economics from Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School:

    According to the traditional view in economics, we are rational agents, well informed with stable preferences, self-controlled, self-interested, and optimizing. The behavioral perspective takes issue with this view and suggests that we are characterized by fallible judgment and malleable preferences and behaviors, can make mistakes calculating risks, can be impulsive or myopic, and are driven by social desires (e.g., looking good in the eyes of others). In other words, we are simply human.

    And now back to Uber. One tactic they use is goal setting. People are drawn to goals. This translates into driver messages like this one: “You’re $10 away from making $330 in net earnings. Are you sure you want to go offline?”

    But the experiment I found most interesting from the NY Times piece is the one that Lyft completed where it discovered that showing drivers lost/dropped fares was a far more powerful motivator than showing completed rides. In other words: Look at all this money you’re losing out on by not driving!

    This finding is in line with something I’ve written about a few times before on this blog: prospect theory. One of the tenets of this theory is that “losses hurt more than gains feel good.” We, humans, tend to focus more on the former.

    Of course, Uber is not alone in employing behavioral economics. Every app on your phone is being continuously optimized so that it gets as much of your attention as possible. But where is the line between encouragement and manipulation?

    If you’re interested in this topic, check out this HBR article called, Uber Shows How Not to Apply Behavioral Economics.

  • Slate at NE 3rd & Davis, Portland

    image

    I just stumbled upon the above project. It’s in Portland. It’s called Slate. It’s 147,000 sf. It sits on a 100′ x 200′ site. It was completed last year. And it was developed by Beam Development and Urban Development Partners.

    Besides having two very cool facades (the east and west facades are the ones that push and pull), I was surprised to see the building clad in unitized curtain wall (as well as composite metal panel). That kind of glazing comes at a premium and this is not a large building. I’m curious about the numbers.

    It’s also a post-tensioned concrete building, which is uncommon in the Toronto market.

    Here’s a close-up of the facade:

    image

    Also noteworthy is the fact that I’m fairly certain the architects inserted a couple having sex in one of their renderings:

    image

    For those of you who did not attend architecture school, there’s a fairly long tradition of hiding “easter eggs” within your renderings. Or at least that was the case when I was in school.

    On that note, happy Easter weekend all.

    All images via Works Progress Architecture (W.PA). Photography by Joshua Jay Elliott.

  • The suburbanization of America continues

    FiveThirtyEight (Jed Kolko) published a post last month called, “Americans’ Shift To The Suburbs Sped Up Last year.” 

    What Kolko did was take recent population estimates from the US Census Bureau and group them into 6 categories based on the size of the metro and its population density. 

    By doing this he discovered something that runs counter to the narrative that we are living through an urban renaissance: lower-density suburbs grew faster than urban counties. The former grew at ~1.3% in 2016. And in the south and west, the lower-density suburbs of large metro areas topped over 2% growth.

    What gives? 

    Well, this urban renaissance is lopsided. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

    That revival is real, but it has mostly been for rich, educated people in particular hyperurban neighborhoods rather than a broad-based return to city living. To be sure, college-educated millennials — at least those without school-age kids — took to the city, and better-paying jobs have shifted there, too. But other groups — older adults, families with kids in school, and people of all ages with lower incomes — either can’t afford or don’t want an urban address.

    Richard Florida is calling this phenomenon: The New Urban Crisis.

  • Betting on electric and autonomous

    On Monday, Tesla surpassed GM in market value, making it the most valuable U.S. automaker. It’s also the first time in modern history that this title was held by a car maker not based in Detroit. The gravitational pull to Silicon Valley is immense, today.

    I subscribe to Alan Murray’s CEO Daily newsletter and his overarching comments were as follows: GM sold 10 million cars last year. Tesla sold 76,230 cars (albeit high value cars – my 2 cents). And Tesla lost three quarters of a billion dollars last year. Are we partying like it’s 1999?

    This is an expectations game.

    Elon Musk crafted an electric sports car that was actually cool and Tesla is certainly one of the leaders when it comes to autonomous vehicle technology. If Tesla is the company that transitions our economy to both electric and autonomous vehicles, then is a current market cap > $51 billion justified?

    I don’t know.

    But given how often we talk about electric and autonomous vehicles on this blog (in the context of city building), I thought it would be worthwhile to also talk about where Wall Street is putting its money and placing its bets.

  • Thickets of haphazardly planned condo towers

    I couldn’t sleep last night, so I got up and pulled out an old issue of Monocle magazine from my nightstand. I then stumbled upon the following article by Taras Grescoe.

    What really stood out for me was this line:

    “Thickets of haphazardly planned condo towers, compacted amid neighbourhoods of single-family houses, have led to congestion nightmares in Toronto and notoriously out-of-hand housing costs in Vancouver.”

    It bothered me for a few reasons:

    – The frame of reference is the single-family house. It perpetuates the cultural bias that what matters most in cities, like Toronto and Vancouver, is low-rise housing.

    – I don’t get the “haphazardly planned” comment. New tower development has been heavily concentrated in the downtown core, growth centers, along the Yonge subway corridor, and so on. Their built form is also significantly influenced by their relationship to these low-rise “Neighbourhoods.”

    – I believe that building up, as opposed to out, is the way to address congestion nightmares. Though I will concede that our ability to plan and execute on transit in this city is positively deplorable. 

    – How did thickets of condos create an affordability problem in Vancouver? Many factors at play in this city, including a powerful geographic supply constraint.

    Those are just a few of my thoughts from early this morning. What are yours?