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.

  • The self-driving car arms race

    Earlier this month, I came across the following chart from USA today. 

    image

    It was based on market caps as at July 29 and so the order wouldn’t look quite the same today. Still, here are the largest companies by market cap and the top 5 are US consumer-facing technology firms.

    Remember when it was a big deal that Apple had surpassed Exxon Mobil as the world’s most valuable company?

    We are living in a tech-driven world.

    Then yesterday, I was reading this New York Times article talking about Uber’s acquisition of Otto (a startup focused on self-driving truck technology) and its plans to allow riders in Pittsburgh to summon self-driving vehicles later this month.

    The vehicle will be a tricked out Volvo:

    image

    These two snippets from the NY Times stood out for me:

    Suddenly, it seems, both Silicon Valley and Detroit are doubling down on their bets for autonomous vehicles. And in what could emerge as a self-driving-car arms race, the players are investing in, or partnering with, or buying outright the specialty companies most focused on the requisite hardware, software and artificial intelligence capabilities.

    “There’s an urgency to our mission about being part of the future,” Travis Kalanick, Uber’s chief executive, said on Thursday in an interview. “This is not a side project. This is existential for us.

    The way it will work in Pittsburgh this summer is that the self-driving Volvos will still arrive with a driver, in addition to a sidekick in the passenger seat taking notes about how the vehicle is performing. But the goal is to start weaning us off of human drivers. These pilot rides will be free to start.

    This is quite possibly the start of a general change in terms of the way cities operate (quote from Bloomberg):

    In the long run, Kalanick says, prices will fall so low that the per-mile cost of travel, even for long trips in rural areas, will be cheaper in a driverless Uber than in a private car. “That could be seen as a threat,” says Volvo Cars CEO Hakan Samuelsson. “We see it as an opportunity.”

    Uber is currently logging about 100 million miles per day. Hopefully it is clear at this point that this is not as simple as ride sharing vs. traditional taxis. Cities who are thinking about it in this way are thinking short-term and missing the bigger picture.

    Companies such as Uber, Tesla, and Google are aiming for a fundamental rethink of urban mobility. There is an arms race going on that I believe will completely eradicate the need for human drivers.

  • The Lofts at SoDoSoPa

    Introducing The Lofts at SoDoSoPa and The Residences at The Lofts at SoDoSoPa (South of Downtown South Park).

    The following South Park video is a great parody of every real estate marketing video you’ve ever seen. Real estate marketing can be so terrible.

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

    This video is probably old news, but I never watch TV and so it’s the first time I’m seeing it.

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

  • Urban migration, household type, and housing supply

    Here is an interesting discussion paper on the Toronto region’s economy, demographic outlook, and its land use. It was recently published by IBI Group and Hemson Consulting to support the 10-year review of our regional transportation plan.

    I wanted to share a couple of charts from the report that I thought were interesting. If you’re not in the Toronto region, I would be very curious to hear how your city might compare in terms of the way it is trending.

    The first chart is net migration by age group. Like Vancouver – similar chart posted here – people have been moving into the city/Toronto when they’re young and then moving out to the suburbs once they start having families. 

    Will that continue? The oldest Millennials are now hitting their mid-30′s and I am very interested to see if there will be any reversal in this.

    image

    Given the above trend, people in this region are not surprisingly also swapping apartments for ground-related housing as they get older. The crossover point seems to be (or at least has been) when people hit their mid-30′s. Again, I am curious how this may evolve as the city matures.

    image

    Because if you look at housing completions from 2001 to 2016 (chart below), the only municipality that was able to meaningfully increase its housing supply was Toronto. 

    Every other municipality – except for Hamilton, which posted modest gains – experienced significant declines in the number of new homes delivered to the market over the last census periods. 

    Of course, the only reason Toronto was able to increase its housing supply was by building up – in other words by building condos and apartments. (Shown in the purple below. For some reason the legend is incomplete in the report.) 

    image

    If you look at the share of housing completions, over 80% of new homes in Toronto are now in apartment form. 

    image

    Intensification is a deliberate policy choice. And we can certainly debate whether it’s a good or bad thing (I believe it’s a good thing). 

    But putting that aside, the above charts are a great answer to the perennial question: “How is it that Toronto is building so many condos?” This is why.

  • Compact and constrained

    I was walking by a tight construction site last night and it got me thinking. Besides the obvious environmental benefits of building up, as opposed to out, compact urban sites can force something else: intent.

    One of the ways I think about good design is that it is intentional. It is about seeing problems and/or opportunities and then being deliberate in how you respond. Every creative decision needs a reason why. I like how John R. Moran talks about design in this blog post from 2014:

    “The opposite of design, then, is the failure to develop and employ intent in making creative decisions. This doesn’t sound hard, but, astonishingly, no other leading tech company makes intentional design choices like Apple. Instead, they all commit at least one of what I term the Three Design Evasions.”

    The three design evasions he goes on to talk about are (1) preserving, (2) copying, and (3) delegating.

    The thing about compact and constrained urban sites is that they can force you away from the three design evasions that Moran lists in his post. You can’t just repeat what was done in the past or copy what someone else has done, because that precedent probably didn’t have the same challenges you face.

    Of course, if this were enough to promote great design, our cities would look a hell of a lot different. Still, it’s one of the reasons why I’m attracted to compact forms of development such as laneway housing and other urban infill.

  • Detroit on the move

    image

    Between 2001 and 2010, Detroit lost more than 200,000 jobs. It went from over 900,000 jobs to a low of about 690,000 jobs. All of this was happening while the United States was experiencing – up until 2008 at least – an economic growth cycle.

    But we all know that Detroit is now a city on the move. According to City Observatory, Detroit has exhibited 5 consecutive years of job growth. And 2016 looks to be no different. Since bottoming out, Detroit has added more than 50,000 jobs.

    The above chart is based on federal data for Wayne County, Michigan. It includes Detroit, Dearborn, and Livonia, but does not include any other counties within the Detroit metro area. (The above chart and stats are all via City Observatory.)

    Of course, the big question is: Has Detroit made the requisite structural changes to its economy to keep this trend line continuing or is this simply a case of a rising tide lifting all boats?

    I have visited Detroit basically every two years since 2009 and you can certainly feel the change, even in that short period of time.

    And if you look at total non-farm employment growth over the last year (June 2015 to June 2016) for the entire Detroit metro area, you see that some of the fastest growing industries include: professional and business services (+14,200 jobs); leisure and hospitality (+10,500 jobs); education and health services (+9,300 jobs); and financial activities (+5,500 jobs). In fact, many of these industries are growing faster than national averages.

    In case you were wondering, manufacturing added 1,200 jobs and government lost 1,800 jobs.

    I’ve heard some people complain that the city, at least downtown, is now too controlled by one entity (Dan Gilbert). But that’s probably what had to happen to really kickstart the city’s renaissance. Somebody had to seed it before you could get the cool coffee shops, bars, restaurants, and coworking spaces.

    There’s still heavy lifting to do, but the data suggests that the city is now headed in the right direction.

    What are your thoughts? Also, if any of you are working on interesting projects in Detroit, I would love to hear from you.

  • LED neon lighting by Electric Confetti

    image

    Ever since I attended Art Basel Miami Beach last year, I’ve been determined to get a neon piece for my condo. I got inspired by all of the neon I saw at the show and so I told myself that I was going to get something made.

    I found a company in Vancouver called Endeavour Neon, but I never ended up pulling the trigger. It turns out that traditional neon lighting is pretty expensive. 

    However, I recently discovered a Melbourne-based company called Electric Confetti. Founded by designer Natalie Jarvis, the company makes LED neon lighting using flex tubes. Supposedly, this makes them more durable and more energy efficient. They’re also less expensive.

    I am trying to figure out shipping to Canada, but it looks like I might be finally getting my neon. I really like the banana (pictured above), but that might be an odd reference for a bedroom. I’ll sleep on it.

    I thought I would share with all of you in case you have a home, an office, or a project that could use some neon lighting.

  • BARED: David Wex, Urban Capital Property Group

    image

    David Wex started his career working for one of the big Seven Sister law firms in Toronto. But right from the outset, it was clear that he wasn’t in it for the long run.

    In fact, only a few days after he started, David had the clever idea of turning his desk around so that it faced the window, instead of the hall. That way, he could avoid eye contact with partners as they walked by his office, and reduce his chances of being assigned a file.

    Of course he couldn’t avoid being tracked down all the time. But whenever someone would try to assign him work, he would simply say: “I’m sorry, but I’m really busy working on something right now.” His nickname quickly became “One File Wex” and it was clear that he was headed towards the departure lounge and not a corner office.

    But already, David had his mind set on doing something related to cities. So while still working as a lawyer he decided to complete his Graduate Record Examination (GRE) in preparation for going to planning school. Ultimately, he decided not to go back to school, but instead leave the firm and just figure things out. He left in 1992.

    After leaving, he did in his words, “nothing” for a few years. He lived off his savings, spent some time working with a bunch of guys cleaning up the Don River, and tried to figure out a way to put together a development project.

    Eventually he met a friend of the Goodman family and this led to an introduction to the Dundee Corporation.

    It was the early 90’s and nothing was happening by way of development in Toronto. The real estate industry was in a deep recession. Ask anyone who was “active” during this time. It was a painful time to be in the business. But the Goodmans told David that he if could find a suitable site to develop, they would invest. Lesson: Developers are constantly leveraging other people’s money.

    So David went out and found a site on a sleepy street named Camden in Toronto’s Fashion District. This is not the Camden Street of today, which has an Ace Hotel currently in the works. It was a dead zone. By this point we are in 1995 and few people believed that anyone would want to live on a downtown street like Camden.

    Given the perceived undesirability of the site and the continued lull in the market, David tied up 29 Camden for C$700,000 with a 2 year option. What this means is that he had 2 years to figure out if he actually wanted to close on it. He could put very little money down and get the project going before having to worry about carrying the land. It wasn’t until midway through sales that he actually went firm.

    It’s hard to imagine being able to do this in today’s competitive real estate market, but that was the market at the time.

    Of course, the flip side to all of this is that it also took him 2 years to sell about 20 condominium units (out of a total of 55), at an average price per square foot of $195. Today you could sell those units in 2 hours at $800 psf.

    Brad Lamb – who was just starting out at the time – was the broker on the project. And activity at the sales office was so scant that everyone would get excited even when a car would drive down Camden Street. That’s how dead it was in the Fashion District.

    Eventually Dundee got impatient. Sales were slow. A lot of money had been spent on marketing. And the partners didn’t believe that “the bump and grind of Queen Street” (original marketing pitch) was the right way to position the product. David was also in the midst of rebranding his company from Red Rocket (named after our transit commission) to Scrappy Dog Real Estate Investments. By that point Dundee came in and said: “You’ve fucked up this project. You’re out.”

    David had felt like he had made it and become a developer with Camden Lofts. But just like that – before construction had even started – he was off the project.

    The deal that David struck with his partners was that he didn’t want any money out of the project (it didn’t end up making much money anyways). But he wanted to stay involved and be able to call Camden Lofts his project. And so to this day, Camden Lofts remains the first development project of his very successful real estate career.

    But Camden Lofts didn’t solidify David as a real estate developer. After the fumble, David took on the role of managing a loft conversion for what turned out to be some pretty dodgy landowners. The total management fee was a princely $5,000, but David wanted to complete his own project from beginning to end. And so he did just that with Century Lofts at 365 Dundas Street East. He also spent a great deal of time learning Illustrator, Photoshop, and other design tools so that he could do all of the marketing himself. This is an experience that would later manifest itself in his company’s business model.

    After tuning his craft for a couple of years, David met his current business partner, Mark Reeve. Mark was a corporate real estate developer and planner, and they talked about doing something together. So they did, and the result was Urban Capital Property Group. Mark was also able to planning consult on the side and that helped fund their fledgling business as they worked on breaking into the development game.

    The first project to come out of this relationship was The Sylvia, which was also on Camden Street (#50). However, you won’t find this project on their website because it was done in partnership with developer Intracorp. The relationship ended up not being a productive one and both David and Mark vowed never again to be involved in a project that they weren’t actively managing themselves. That vow continues to this day.

    The first project that Urban Capital did on their own was the 66-unit Charlotte Lofts. It’s the first project they completed from A to Z. They sourced the site, secured the financing, worked on the design, marketed it, and constructed it. It was a success.

    The partners did well but the learning curve remained so steep that neither felt that they had really “made it” with this project. Indeed, my interviews have uncovered that this is a common experience amongst new developers. It can take a few projects before they really hit their stride and, in some cases, even make any money.

    But who ever remembers the stumbles?

    Today, Urban Capital has completed over 4,000 urban condominiums and has another 2,500 in the works. They have developed over $2 billion worth of real estate to become one of Canada’s most influential urban infill developers.

    Unlike other Toronto-based condo developers, they have branched out beyond Toronto: east to Montreal, Ottawa and Halifax; and west to Winnipeg and Saskatoon, with other cities on the horizon. Their mission is to act as an urban regenerator by bringing high design urban living to new markets across the country.

    They have come a long way since the days of Scrappy Dog Real Estate Investments. Clearly David is the furthest thing from “One File Wex.”

    You can follow Urban Capital on Twitter and on Facebook.

    Image: River City 2, Toronto

    ———————————————————

    This is the first post in my new blog series called BARED (Becoming A Real Estate Developer). More posts to come in the following weeks. Subscribe to stay in the loop.

  • #FirstSevenJobs

    I’m late. I’ve been meaning to write this post all week. I think #FirstSevenJobs is a great trending meme. It shows that careers and life are often a non-linear journey. It’s also not all privilege. Many (most?) successful people started off from very humble beginnings.

    But as I was trying to list out my first seven jobs, I came to the realization that I have done a lot of different things for money and out of interest before I settled into my career. Many of them also overlapped each other and I couldn’t quite remember which came first. I also worked all throughout University.

    So I’m going to break the rules. Rather than only list my first seven jobs, I’m going to list all of the gigs I took on before getting into the business I’m in today. Like Seth Godin though, I’m in a way thinking of these more as projects, than as jobs.

    Here’s my list:

    1. Bagged and carried people’s groceries at Sobeys
    2. Shovelled dirt at a green house
    3. Sales Associate in computer department at Staples
    4. Traveling Sales Representative for Hewlett-Packard
    5. Sold burnt CDs at my high school (until everyone else had a CD burner and I lost my unique value proposition)
    6. Built custom computers (anyone remember when overclocking was a thing?)
    7. Mover (usually for offices)
    8. Sales Associate at Sony Store (these stores no longer exist)
    9. Started online community for students at StudentLifestyle.com (I clearly didn’t execute as well as Facebook)
    10. Model/actor with Ford Models (included one summer in Taipei and Hong Kong)
    11. Waiter at a Thai restaurant on Queen Street (I lasted 1 week; I hated serving people)
    12. Started daily photoblog at bdonn.com (shut down about 15 years ago)
    13. Nightclub promoter
    14. Paid DJ at exactly 1 wedding
    15. Sales Associate at trendy clothing store
    16. Sales Associate with Telus Mobility dealer (sold mobile phones)
    17. Security Guard (paid reasonably well and gave me time to study in undergrad)
    18. Intern at Canadian Architect (magazine)
    19. Intern Architect
    20. Teaching Assistant at the Wharton School
    21. Started global real estate listing platform (failed)
    22. Development Intern (real estate)

    Looking back, it’s probably no surprise that I studied computer science before studying architecture.

    What’s your list?

    Please share in the comment section below. Feel free to keep it to seven if that’s what you prefer. But I found that difficult.

  • Introducing: BARED blog series

    I was out with for a bike ride the other night with a good friend of mine and we were talking about all of the creative and social media-based projects that we would like to do. Everything from a daily vlog to a regular podcast. Sadly there are only so many things one can focus on.

    If you’ve been reading this blog since the beginning of this year, you’ll know that I’ve been trying to write a book on “becoming a real estate developer.” I believe there’s a lot of interest in this topic. It’s the number one question I receive from readers: “How do I become a developer?”

    But with everything that’s going on this year, I have decided to turn the research and writing I have done to date into a blog series that I’m calling BARED (Becoming A Real Estate Developer). I’ve interviewed a lot of fantastic people in the business and I want to get that information out there.

    The focus of the series – which was the intent of the book – is to uncover the early decisions and first projects that these now successful developers made and took on. In other words, it’s less about their current successes and more about what they did to get there.

    So no book. But expect to see the first BARED post very shortly. I think I’ll start with 3 posts and then gauge the response.

  • Manager vs. maker

    image

    I am a big believer in making things. 

    That could be writing a blog post, recording a podcast, coding an app, designing a building, making something tangible, or whatever. It is the act of creating something. And it’s one of the reasons I love what I do. At the end of the day, I have had a hand in (hopefully) creating something awesome that didn’t exist before.

    I don’t think everyone feels this way but, for me, when I don’t block time to “make things” I can sometimes feel antsy. I need time to do creative things. It makes me feel like I’m being productive. It makes me feel like I’m producing output, as opposed to just sitting in meetings and making sure everything is on track. Maybe that’s the architect in me.

    Paul Graham describes these two mindsets as that of a manager and that of a maker. And in a great essay published in 2009, he talks about how different these two people’s schedules can be. Below is a longish excerpt that I think you’ll find valuable for life and business.

    “There are two types of schedule, which I’ll call the manager’s schedule and the maker’s schedule. The manager’s schedule is for bosses. It’s embodied in the traditional appointment book, with each day cut into one hour intervals. You can block off several hours for a single task if you need to, but by default you change what you’re doing every hour.

    When you use time that way, it’s merely a practical problem to meet with someone. Find an open slot in your schedule, book them, and you’re done.

    Most powerful people are on the manager’s schedule. It’s the schedule of command. But there’s another way of using time that’s common among people who make things, like programmers and writers. They generally prefer to use time in units of half a day at least. You can’t write or program well in units of an hour. That’s barely enough time to get started.

    When you’re operating on the maker’s schedule, meetings are a disaster. A single meeting can blow a whole afternoon, by breaking it into two pieces each too small to do anything hard in. Plus you have to remember to go to the meeting. That’s no problem for someone on the manager’s schedule. There’s always something coming on the next hour; the only question is what. But when someone on the maker’s schedule has a meeting, they have to think about it.

    I find one meeting can sometimes affect a whole day. A meeting commonly blows at least half a day, by breaking up a morning or afternoon. But in addition there’s sometimes a cascading effect. If I know the afternoon is going to be broken up, I’m slightly less likely to start something ambitious in the morning. I know this may sound oversensitive, but if you’re a maker, think of your own case. Don’t your spirits rise at the thought of having an entire day free to work, with no appointments at all? Well, that means your spirits are correspondingly depressed when you don’t. And ambitious projects are by definition close to the limits of your capacity. A small decrease in morale is enough to kill them off.”

    This really resonates with me. It’s a great reminder, regardless of which schedule you’re currently on. Because even if you’re firmly ensconced in one of the two camps, chances are you work with people in the other one. And understanding where they’re coming from is important.

    Paul then goes on to talk about speculative business meetings in his essay. These are the “let’s grab coffee” meetings. They’re costly if you’re on the maker’s schedule, but they’re expected if you’re on the manager’s schedule. I have learned to cap these throughout the week. They can easily overwhelm a calendar.

    The big takeaway for me after reading Paul’s essay is that – if you make things – you have to be draconian about blocking time for that. I completely agree that even one meeting can derail an ambitious make session. So I am going to work harder at doing just that.

    Would you consider yourself to be a manager, maker, or both? I aspire to be both.