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

  • How people behave on the subway and how subway seating could be better designed

    I take the subway to the office every day and oftentimes I find myself standing there thinking about what the most efficient subway car interior would look like. I guess it’s the architect and designer in me, but I keep trying to rethink the seating arrangement.

    image

    My first thought is always that the perpendicular seats that shoot out into the middle of the train are a complete waste of space. If you’re tall (I’m 6’3”), they’re actually uncomfortable to sit in. Every time I do, I feel as if my femur is too long for the allotted space. 

    One top of that, nobody ever wants to sit in the interior seat—primarily, I think, because they’re cumbersome to get in and out of when somebody is sitting beside you. So you end up with a countless number of cases where those benches are only half occupied.

    But what’s really interesting about this thought exercise is that it can’t be done without also closely analyzing human behavior. Here’s what I’ve noticed here in Toronto.

    People want to be as far away as possible from other people on the subway. It’s weird to sit beside someone unless you really have to. In fact, try this exercise: Walk onto a sparsely populated subway and sit directly beside somebody. I bet you that person will move and/or give you a dirty look.

    What this means is that the end seats always fill up first. People don’t want middle seats, which, I’ve learned, is why they put grab poles in the middle of benches longer than 2 seats. They’re trying to simulate an end seat and make that middle seat feel less like it’s, well, in the middle. You get a pole in between you and the person next to you.

    But before sitting in the middle seat, most people would rather stand. Standing is preferable to rubbing shoulders with someone, unless the subway train gets really busy, in which case people will start to sit anywhere. Typically people like to stand right beside the doors, because there’s a place to lean and it’s easy to get off when your stop comes. But this isn’t ideal from an onboarding and offboarding standpoint. It’s people in the way.

    Of course, there are many others who have spent a lot more time than me thinking about this topic. A quick search revealed this Wired article talking about this very subject. And below is the layout that they recommend. The design is from the Transportation Research Board.

    image

    Their recommendation is to basically remove the seating around the middle doors, so that it’s easier for people to get on and off the train, and to stack airplane style seating towards both ends. In this scenario, the middle gets optimized for standing and the ends get optimized for sitting.

    Now it’s your turn. Do you think this would be better or worse than what you have today in your city? Let me know in the comments below.

  • Comprehensive to the core

    The City of Toronto recently started an initiative called “Comprehensive to the Core.” It’s a look at how downtown Toronto–which is growing at 4 times the rate of the rest of the city–should continue to grow moving forward so that it remains a great place to live, work, learn and play.

    Here’s a presentation that was delivered last month by the city. It’s mostly infographics and so it’s a quick and fun read. And here’s an infographic that does a nice job of summarizing what’s happening in the core of Toronto.

    What it’s saying is that downtown Toronto–which they consider to be bound by Bathurst Street in the west, the Don Valley Parkway in the east, the lake in the south, and Dupont Street in the north–is responsible for 51% of the city’s entire GDP. It’s also responsible for 33% of all jobs in the city and 25% of the city’s entire tax base. And yet in terms of size, it represents only 3% of the city’s land area.

    That’s a powerful reminder of the economic potential of density and agglomeration economies. It’s also a reminder that we shouldn’t let politics deprive our economic engine of the services and investments it needs.

  • A century of homeownership and renting in England and Wales

    This morning while I was reading about gentrification in Berlin, I clicked through to an interesting overview of homeownership and renting in England and Wales over the last century. Here’s a video. If you can’t see it below, click here.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDnGryGJ1ZA]

    The video starts in 1918, where the vast majority of households (77%) rented. As of 2011, this number has reversed. 64% of households in England and Wales now own their home.

    If you compare this housing trend to what happened in the United States and Canada, you’ll see a similarity. Although, the US was ahead in terms of promoting homeownership. They reached 50% ownership somewhere in the mid 1940s, whereas England and Wales didn’t reach this number until around 1971.

    image

    All of this is an interesting reminder that our obsession with homeownership is a relatively new one. But it’s also not a universal one. The homeownership rate in Berlin is 15.6%, and it’s only 49.5% in London. People in big cities tend to rent more.

  • World’s first connected bike for urban commuters

    image

    The Vanhawks Valour smartbike has been making the rounds on the internet over the past few weeks. They’re a Toronto based startup and they’ve just raised $820,000 on Kickstarter to build and sell the first connected smartbike. The bike will eventually retail for around $1,000. 

    Here’s a video that explains it all. If you can’t see it below, click here.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1931822269/vanhawks-valour-first-ever-connected-carbon-fibre/widget/video.html

    I’m pumped to see a Toronto startup doing so well and attracting so much attention globally. I hope they continue crushing it. Good luck guys.

  • A day on Ward’s Island

    I have a friend in town visiting me from New York this weekend. And since today was such a beautiful day in Toronto, we decided to spend the afternoon on the Toronto Islands–Ward’s Island to be exact. The islands are such an incredible amenity in the city. I try and go as often as I can during the summer. It’s my Central Park.

    But in addition to parks and beaches, many people also live on the islands. There are 262 residential properties across the archipelago. Below is what a residential street looks like. There are no cars allowed. It’s a gorgeous place.

    But if you want a house on the Toronto Islands you have to get on a waiting list. There only 500 spots and it’ll probably take you about 30 years before you get to a meaningful position on that list. But even then, you’re only buying the house. The land itself is on lease.

    But if we didn’t regulate, the islands would be a very different place. 262 homes is not a lot of housing. In fact, it’s less than most of the new condo buildings going up downtown. So it’ll probably always be a heavily regulated market.

  • Thoughts on big box retailing and the Stockyards

    image

    Tonight I finally got the opportunity to visit the Stockyards retail center at the corner of St. Clair West and Weston Road in Toronto. It’s a 550,000 square foot complex that was only recently completed. The major anchor tenant is Target and it just so happens to be the first new construction Target in Canada.

    What’s interesting about the Stockyards development is that it’s a reinvention of the suburban big box store format that we all know so well. You know, the big store surrounded by a sea of parking. And from my past experience working on projects similar to this one, I can tell you that the Stockyards project is generally loved by planners at the city.

    So what’s the big deal?

    Let’s first look at how it would work for a traditional big box store development. Assume you’re a developer and you’re trying to secure a 150,000 square foot big box store tenant for your site.

    Historically, in order for that tenant to even consider signing with you, you’d need to be able to offer her a single level format. In other words, her 150,000 square feet needs to be all on one level. Multiple levels are more expensive to build and they add another layer of complexity when it comes to shopping carts, back of house loading, and so on.

    On top of this, she’s going to have onerous parking requirements. It wouldn’t be unheard of for her to ask–or demand–for 3.5 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of rentable area. If you do the math in this example (150,000 / 1,000 x 3.5), you get 525 parking spots. This number usually exceeds any of the parking requirements that your local municipality might have. And historically, it has always been surface parking. So forget about building a parking garage and don’t even waste a second thinking about underground parking. That’s way too expensive.

    Finally, the tenant will want her building oriented in such a way that the entrance is directly in front of the largest possible number of parking stalls. Usually this means that the front of the building is facing inward, away from the street, and the rear of the building is facing outward towards the rest of the city. If you could provide all of this and the demographics in your catchment radius were favorable for her business, you’d be in a pretty good position to sign a deal.

    The problem with this format is that most cities don’t want it anymore. It goes against everything that most progressive cities are trying to promote in terms of walkable and transit-oriented communities. Large surface parking lots don’t make for great cities and neither do introverted buildings. At the same time, land values are getting to a point where developers need to use their land more intensively. Big surface parking lots just aren’t the highest and best use.

    So how then do you make big box retailing work?

    That’s where the Stockyards comes in. What they’ve done is put smaller retailers along the perimeter of the site with direct access from the sidewalk; they’ve buried the parking in the middle of the site (and built structured parking); and they’ve moved the anchor and larger tenants (Target, Winners, etc.) to the second floor. I don’t think that all big box stores would go for this, but Target is known to be one of the more progressive in this regard.

    So functionally, if you’re taking transit and walking along the street, you have shops engaging you and you’re not looking at the loading area of some big box store. And if you happen to be driving–as many people do to big box stores–you can either drive in and park on the ground floor (and then take an escalator up) or you can drive up the second floor parking area and walk right into the store as you normally would. What they’ve basically done is adapted big box stores to a more urban context. 

    image

    Now, I can see why many at the city like this development and I certainly think it’s a step in the right direction in terms of getting both developers and tenants to think more urban. But I wouldn’t say that we’ve nailed the formula here. When I was there the space felt empty and I had trouble orienting myself after I parked. But it’s certainly a major improvement compared to the big box stores across the street.

    If you’ve had a chance to visit the Stockyards, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.

  • Will real estate developers open up, too?

    A few months ago I read a book by venture capitalist Ben Horowitz called “The Hard Thing About Hard Things.“ It was a great read and I recommend it to anyone who currently or plans to one day manage and lead people. But on a side to that, one of the things I found really interesting is the shift he talks about in the venture capitalist business.

    Over the span of a decade, venture capitalists went from being ivory tower professionals to incredibly open and transparent. And they did that primarily through blogging. Just yesterday, I saw somebody tweet out that the key to becoming a venture capitalist in 1994 was to get an MBA. Today, it’s to start a blog.

    The reason I find that interesting is because I predict that the same transformation is going to happen in the real estate development business. Today, most developers are pretty opaque. The people and personalities behind the projects are still generally concealed (save for a few developers) and my sense is that there’s still very much a fear of exposing and sharing too much.

    But the lesson to be learned from the VC business is that blogs have become one of, if not their most important customer acquisition tool. I read somewhere that entrepreneurs—which are the customers of VCs—are most heavily influenced by blogs over any other medium. That is how they decide who they will allow to invest in their business.

    Which is why I think it’s only a matter of time before the same sort of dynamic plays out in the real estate business. In fact, one of the most common questions I get from readers of ATC is about the reputation of developers and builders. Customers—before they decide who they will allow to build their future home—not surprisingly want to know something about the developer.

    So if you’re a developer looking to sell more homes or lease more space,   I suggest giving blogging a try. It’s hard work, but I think you’ll be surprised at how effective a tool it can be.

  • How mobile apps are going to help us build better cities

    image

    Some of you might know that I’ve recently started using a mobile app called Strava. It’s a platform that allows you to track your runs and bike rides, as well as those of your friends. It tells you your speed, elevation changes, and it also maps your trips–among many other things. Here’s what my 50 km ‘Ride for Heart’ looks like from last Sunday.

    But what’s even more interesting is how cities are starting to use the data this app collects:

    For $20,000 a year, transportation planners and others can access Strava Metro, which provides an unprecedented look at where and how people are biking. It can tell them where they speed up and slow down, for example, or where they might stay in the street or ride on a crosswalk. That information can reveal where bike lanes or traffic calming measures would be useful, and if those already installed are effective.

    It’s a perfect example of how “tech” is infiltrating so many other sectors. Mobile technology and networks are generating huge amounts of data and it’s happening at an increasing rate. We’re gaining insights into the way people live that simply wasn’t possible before. Some of this information will inevitably be misused, but a lot of it will be used to improve the way we live our lives.

    I know that the City of Toronto also has its own proprietary cycling app and is hoping to collect similar sorts of data from it. But intuitively, I don’t think they’ll be able to compete with the scale of a platform like Strava. Though I certainly applaud the initiative.

    The information age is an exciting time.

    Image: Strava via Wired

  • Home remodeling site Houzz valued at $2.3 billion

    Earlier this week it was announced that home remodeling site Houzz raised a $150 million Series D round, which would value the company at around $2.3 billion, post-money. Meaning, that’s the value of the company including the money it just raised.

    If you’ve never used Houzz before, it’s a platform that offers design inspiration for remodeling projects, products for sale, and a directory of home professionals. The company makes money by selling products through its online storefront and through premium accounts for the pros.

    The perceived value of Houzz likely stems from the fact that it provides a platform to address the estimated $300 billion home improvement market. But what I see as really exciting is the potential for Houzz to bring even greater transparency to the whole renovation and construction marketplace.

    Already Houzz has started to aggregate data on average renovation costs throughout the US. But there’s a lot more they could do. Professional reviews and design inspirations are great, but I can imagine them “moving up the stack” to start acting as a king of virtual general contractor that manages more of the actual renovation process.

    And that would be pretty powerful.

  • Could driverless cars be a big deal for cities?

    image

    I’m a big believer in public transportation. I generally believe that the only way to build a big, efficient, and sustainable city is on the backbone of a good transit system. But at the same time, I’m open to fresh ideas. And I’m concerned with the inability of most cities to actually build transit in a way that meaningfully responds to demand.

    So what are the alternatives?

    The first thought that comes to mind is the delivery system itself. Some cities, such as Hong Kong, have successfully combined transit delivery with real estate development as a way to improve the economics behind building transit. And I think that makes a lot of sense.

    But my other thought is that maybe the solution to urban mobility is something completely new. Maybe Google is on to something with their driverless cars. Is that the future? Many would disagree.

    We’ve established that cars don’t work all that well for getting people around in big congested cities. So what difference would it make whether or not the cars have a driver or not? Well, I was thinking about this last night and there are some meaningful differences.

    A network of driverless cars would give us perfect information about all to the cars on the road. Similar to to how Google’s Waze navigation app feeds off user input (both active and passive), we’d know the exact number of cars on the road and the precise point in which additional cars would cause a drop in efficiency (i.e. a reduction in vehicle speeds).

    At the same time, it could enable a powerful sharing economy. In a recent study done by MIT’s Senseable City Lab, it was found that roughly 80% of New York cab rides could be shared. That is, 80% of the time there’s somebody else who’s also traveling from roughly the same point A to the same point B.

    So here’s what I’m thinking.

    You use Google’s driverless car technology and the perfect information you get from the networked vehicles to create a fluid and ever-evolving transit network. What I’m imagining is that the driverless vehicles don’t operate based on a model of individual mobility; they instead operate on a principle of batched mobility.

    Let’s say for example that there are critical mass of people who want to leave Liberty Village between 8:00am – 8:30am to travel to the Financial District. What they would do is enter this itinerary and then a “station” would get formed somewhere nearby. Users would get notified of the station’s location, which would be determined based on proximity to the highest concentration of “riders.”

    The driverless cars would then get notified and would begin assembling the appropriate number of vehicles at the selected station location. As is the case with conventional forms of public transportation, most people would need to walk to the station. But never that far.

    In essence, it would function as a cross between private and public transportation. You would get the economies of scale generated by public transit, with some of the individual conveniences of private transportation.

    How does that sound?