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

  • Why what happens after dark matters to creative industries

    I have been very vocal on this blog about the importance “nighttime economies” for cities and for its creative industries. So I continue to be encouraged by all of the attention that this topic is getting over the last year or so.

    Recently, the Creative Industries Federation released a report called: Because the Night – Why what happens after dark matters to the creative industries. It’s a look at creative industries in the UK and the role that nightlife plays in supporting them.

    Here are some of their takeaways:

    Creative industries in the UK have been growing faster than any other sector since 2008. CIF estimates that 1/11 people now work in this space, with the number being much higher in London: 1/6.

    The value of restaurants, clubs, bars, pubs, live music venues, and theaters, is that they are places to connect, showcase talent, develop ideas, and so on. They are also critical in attracting top talent because, well, people not surprisingly like to have fun.

    In the span of one decade (2005 to 2015), it is estimated that the UK lost roughly half of its nightclubs. The total went from 3,144 to 1,733. From 2007 to 2015, London lost 35% of its “grassroots music venues”, which, historically, have served to support emerging artists.

    Arguably, some of this may be due to changes in consumer preference and broader shifts in terms of the way people discover/consume music. But it’s also thought to be because of rising urban rents, concerns around noise and revelry, and so on.

    Still, the nighttime economy in the UK is thought to be worth £66 billion per year and to employ some 1.3 million people. It’s an integral part of our urban economies and so it’s time we acknowledged and celebrated it as such.

  • 121 E 22nd

    My friends in New York tell me that if you want to sell a luxury residential building, you need a name brand architect. People care about architecture and it’s part of the buying process: “Oh, it’s a Herzog building.”

    To that end, Toll Brothers City Living just released the following video for their 121 E 22nd project in New York. If you can’t see it below, click here. What’s notable, is that it is OMA’s first full building in New York. So the story is: star architect + first building in the city.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSQq8W8od9g?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

    But there’s more. It’s almost unbelievable that, until now, OMA hadn’t designed and constructed a full building in New York. I reread this Dezeen article 5 times just to make sure I wasn’t missing something.

    So much of Rem Koolhaas’ career (founding partner of OMA) is centered around New York City. In 1978, he published Delirious New York, where he both dissected and celebrated the city’s “culture of congestion.” Oysters at the downtown athletic club, anyone?

    This book was so influential that I bet you’d be hard pressed to find an architect that doesn’t have it in their collection. I have his approximation of New York hanging on my wall. So this was clearly overdue. Kudos Toll Brothers City Living.

    Note: OMA’s New York office is led by Shohei Shigematsu.

  • Solutions to NIMBYism

    Earlier today Richard Florida published a piece in CityLab called: Anatomy of a NIMBY. The article cites a recent paper by Paavo Monkkonen (of UCLA) that focuses on the relationship between NIMBYism and housing affordability – a much talked about subject these days.

    More specifically, the paper identifies “four different strains of NIMBYism” and then offers up some possible solutions, which include things like a more inclusive process and better data. I’ve publicly supported these kinds of approaches on this blog many times before.

    But in addition to the above, I wanted to point out two other ideas from the paper and Florida’s article.

    The first is about shifting land use decisions up to the regional level, and maybe even the state level. This one is particularly timely given that there’s a lot of discussion in Toronto right now about shifting land use decisions in the exact opposite direction – from province (OMB) to city.

    The second is a suggestion from Yale professor David Schleicher that he refers to as “tax increment local transfers.” Essentially, the idea is to somehow allow current residents to participate in the future tax revenues generated from new development in their neighborhood.

    There’s lots of interesting reading buried in the above links.

  • Oh boy bicycle house

    image

    A new “bicycle house” recently opened up in Malmö, Sweden. It is a 7 storey apartment building that has been designed entirely around the bicycle. It’s called Cykelhuset Ohboy.

    Bicycle house means:

    – There’s no parking for cars in the building. Apparently it’s the first building in Sweden to do that, which is surprising to me. I thought that would be more common.

    – All of the access corridors were made wider so that it’s easier to maneuver your bike around, larger bikes can fit, and there aren’t any access issues when bikes are left outside of your apartment.

    – All of the doors in the complex are 10cm wider than they need to be (and have door openers). The elevators are also larger and open up on both sides so you don’t have to turn your bike around.

    – The building is equipped with cargo bikes and kid friendly bikes so that you can grocery shop and wheel your family around. The building does have larger family sized apartments and, according to Copenhagenize, the building is fully occupied.

    In most, if not all, condo buildings here in Toronto, you’re usually not allowed to take bicycles in the elevators. And bikes sitting on balconies is considered a highly undesirable outcome.

    But clearly that’s just one frame of reference for how the world should work.

  • Housing is a bitch

    I just discovered Steve Randy Waldman’s blog called Interfluidity and, more specifically, a post he wrote called: “Home is where the cartel is.” I am now following him.

    He starts off by saying that housing is a bitch, which is just him saying that urban housing is a difficult problem to solve. A truism for this audience.

    He doesn’t profess to have all of the answers, but he does write a thoughtful piece that covers, among other things: the “market urbanist” (supply-side) solution to solving housing affordability, the reasons why the “housing cartel” will never approve of this, and the inherent contradiction between housing as an investment and housing as a sustainably affordable good.

    He also offers up Singapore and Germany as examples of two very different housing markets. It reminded me of a tweet I retweeted this morning which shows Germany as having the 2nd lowest homeownership rate (45%) among OECD countries.

  • 3 thoughts on employment

    There’s lots of talk these days about how technological innovation and globalization are taking our jobs.

    Of course, these are not unreasonable concerns. The data suggests a hollowing out of the middle class and the threat of automation feels perhaps more real than over with the recent advancements in AI and robotics.

    But here are 3 things to consider and discuss:

    1) It doesn’t feel realistic to believe that the jobs which went overseas will ever return en masse – as nice as it may sound to argue that. They went overseas to take advantage of a particular cost structure and those motives haven’t changed.

    2) It is not guaranteed that technological innovation will destroy more jobs than it creates. In fact, historically the opposite has often been true. The jobs that were lost by technological innovation were replaced by new / more jobs and greater economic surpluses. For instance, think of agriculture.

    3) But could this time be different? If we are indeed entering a new economic period, then it strikes me that 1), above, becomes even further away from the right solution. Some of the proposed solutions include universal basic income and a robot tax (links to interview with Bill Gates).

  • Rational nexus

    In Toronto we have something known as Development Charges. In the US, they are more commonly referred to as Development Impact Fees, which in my view, lends a certain precision to their intent.

    The idea behind these fees is that they account for some or all of the off-site public costs required to serve a new development. Initially this meant utilities, but today these fees usually include everything from transit and parks to child care and pedestrian infrastructure.

    According to Wikipedia, the first impact fees were implemented in Hinsdale, Illinois in 1947. By the 1980s, impact fees had become a universally accepted mechanism for funding the costs associated with growth.

    Not surprisingly, there’s substantial case law around impact fees. One of the concepts that comes up a lot is this idea of essential or rational nexus. That is, can the fee(s) be rationally linked to the impacts of a particular development?

    One well known example is Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987). 

    The Nollans proposed to build a 2-storey house within the exact same footprint of their current 1-storey house. As an approval condition, the Coastal Commission wanted a public easement across the beach in front of their house.

    The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Nollans and held that the development exaction (public easement) was not adequately related to their new development (additional storey). A “rational nexus” did not exist.

    If you’re interested in this topic, the American Planning Association has a policy guide on impact fees available on their website.

  • The Green View Index

    The MIT Senseable City Lab recently developed something called the Green View Index. It is a measure of a city’s tree canopy. Below are the GVIs for Boston (18.2%), Geneva (21.4%), London (12.7%), and New York (13.5%). You may have to zoom in.

    image

    And here is a screenshot of Toronto. We have a GVI of 19.5%.

    image

    The index was developed by methodically scanning for trees in Google Street View panoramas. The reason street view was used – as opposed to aerial photography – was so that they could capture the human experience at street level.

    All of MIT’s interactive city maps can be found here. It’s also interesting to pan around and see which neighborhoods are the greenest – particularly if you are familiar with the city.

    One thing I noticed is that large green spaces such as Central Park, High Park, and Stanley Park don’t show up as very green. And that’s because the index uses car-based street view data. I feel like these green spaces should count for something though.

  • Die Es

    image

    To celebrate the launch of their Guide to Cosy Homes (2015), Monocle Films produced a number of home tours. 

    Die Es, pictured above, is the home of South African architects Gawie and Gwen Fagan. They started building their home in 1964, just as they were starting their practice. 

    Because of this, they had little money and had to do a lot of the work themselves. They sold their car to buy a concrete mixer.

    Although they didn’t set out to explicitly design a “Cape” house, it ended up that way, with heavy thermal masses, white walls, and so on. 

    The architecture also relates very closely to the surrounding landscape – as it should – in the way in which it frames views of the water and mountains. 

    The mediterranean climate also really comes through in the materiality of the home and the connections to outside.

    If you’d like to watch the 5 minute tour of Die Es, click here.

  • New York, San Francisco, Toronto

    Yesterday it was announced (here, here, and here) that Toronto-based Top Hat has raised $22.5 million (USD) in Series-C funding. The round was led by New York-based Union Square Ventures.

    I am always excited to see Toronto-based startups doing well and I am particularly excited by this remark in USV’s blog announcement:

    “Also worth noting is that Toronto continues to impress us with its quality and diversity of companies. We now have five investments there, placing Toronto third as a location in the USV portfolio after New York and San Francisco.”

    Here is another quote from Fred Wilson’s blog:

    “Toronto is a great place for startups. In addition to five investments of ours that are HQ’d there, I know of at least one other USV portfolio company that has much of their engineering team in Toronto. The talent, mindset, and quality of the people in the Toronto/Waterloo tech/startup community is really top notch and we love investing there.”

    Go Toronto. 

    (Of course, Toronto really means Toronto-Waterloo. That’s the geography of the ecosystem.)