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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If there are two things we like to talk about here in Toronto it’s that there are a lot of condos going up and that it’s becoming increasingly difficult–some would say impossible–to get around. Just this past weekend, I had 2 or 3 people tell me that biking is the only practical way to get around downtown and that it’s fairly easy to outwalk a streetcar on either Queen Street or King Street.
Usually these statements are followed by a question, asking what the city is doing to address these issues. The unfortunate reality is that I think urban mobility is going to get worse before it gets better (although I am thrilled about the Eglinton Crosstown line now under construction). If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that I’m a supporter of a Downtown Relief Subway line and that I was disappointed by John Tory’s recent transit proposal.
The best way to explain why I feel this way is to talk about how and where Toronto is growing. In my post on John Tory’s transit proposal, I talked about how Toronto is developing in the shape of an upside down letter T. And the reason for that is because in the city’s Official Plan, the “Downtown and Central Waterfront” area is identified as a growth node and is shaped more or less like an upside T. It’s the light orange in the following map.
In addition to the downtown core, the areas shown in red are earmarked as “Centres” for growth. There’s one in each borough (Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough) and one at Yonge & Eglinton, which most people would consider to be the heart of midtown. Finally, you have the “Avenues” which are the greenish brown lines on the above map. Those are areas that city also hopes will accommodate future growth.
Now, let’s look at where development is happening in the city. Here’s residential development from 2008 to 2012. The biggest circle represents 2,000 proposed residential units.
And here’s non-residential development. The largest diamond represents projects with a non-residential floor area greater than 50,000 square meters (~540,000 square feet).
What should become immediately apparent is that growth–particularly on the residential side–is happening more or less according to plan. The biggest “outliers” are really the development happening along Mimico’s waterfront and all the development happening along Sheppard Avenue East. But those are because of the water and the Sheppard subway line.
In both the residential and non-residential cases though, the downtown and central waterfront area is quite clearly receiving a significant share of the development happening in the city.
Which always makes me wonder: Why are we so reluctant to build proper transit in the core?
The city’s Official Plan is clearly funneling growth to downtown and yet we continue to propose, fund, and build subway lines in areas where the population densities are lower and ridership levels will inevitably be less. Which ultimately means that the required government subsidies to keep those lines operating will be higher.
I’m not suggesting that the inner boroughs don’t also need top notch transit and infrastructure. They absolutely do. But I get frustrated when politics trumps rational city building. And so does everybody else who’s stuck with inadequate mobility options.
If you’re looking for the petition to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, click here.
Last Monday the Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, Rufus Ewing, was in Canada visiting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The purpose of the trip was to “boost ties” between the two countries. It was about trade, which most people would agree is a fairly typical kind of meeting.
However, this meeting struck a different headline in the media. And that’s because–for almost a century–there have been discussions and proposals put forward in this country to annex the Turks and Caicos Islands. The earliest record appears to be from 1917 when Prime Minister Robert Borden first suggested it.
Since then, the idea has been raised on many other occasions. In fact, both Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan have actually stepped forward and formally invited the Turks and Caicos to join their provinces. Here’s what Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall had to say during this most recent visit:
“I think we want to be constructive in Saskatchewan. If the Prime Minister’s looking for a way to make this happen and doesn’t want to go through the challenge of creating a province or territory, and Turks and Caicos want to make this happen, just, you know, we’d like a tropical island.“
Presumably this approach would be easier than creating an 11th province or 4th territory. But despite these offers and efforts over the years, the idea has always been ultimately rejected. Following this week’s meeting, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird stepped forward and also firmly rejected the idea:
"We’re not in the business of annexing islands in the Caribbean to be part of Canada. So that’s not something that we’re exploring. We’re not looking at any sort of formal association with the islands.”
But before I dive in, here’s a bit of background on the Turks and Caicos. The country is a collection of approximately 40 islands–most of which are uninhabited. They are a British Overseas Territory, but are self governing. However, from August 2009 to November 2012 the UK temporarily suspended its ability to self govern following allegations of corruption and fiscal mismanagement.
The land area of the country is approximately 613 square kilometres, which results in a population density of 51 people per square kilometre. For comparison, the land area of the City of Toronto alone (not the Greater Toronto Area) is almost equal at roughly 630 square kilometres. The population density averages around 4,150 people per square kilometre.
Now, onto why I believe we should be looking at a union. Here are 5 reasons.
1. They are open to the idea
Canada is not globally known as an imperialistic country and I’m not suggesting we change that. But here we have a case where the Turks and Caicos appears clearly open to the idea of some form of union. Why would we not consider it? And as long as they remain open to the idea, travellers will be able to continue placing the Canadian flag on their backpacks as a way to win friends overseas.
2. We’re aligned
Given that the Turks and Caicos is a British Overseas Territory, the country uses the common law system and the official language is English. (They’re missing French, but I’m sure that could be worked out.) We even share the same monarch. (Although, deep down inside I wish Canada was a republic.) These commonalities would make a proposed union all that much easier.
3. Vacationing and retirement
This is the obvious one that is getting most of the attention in the press. Canada is cold and we spend a lot of money traveling to warmer places. But if Canada had a province that was blessed with the weather of a place like the Turks and Caicos, I’d wager that it would receive a disproportionate amount of our travel and retirement dollars. All of a sudden you eliminate currency risk and the fear of foreign health care, which are both particularly important for retirees. This means that a lot more money would be kept within the Canadian economy. Sorry, Florida.
4. Access to education
53% of the labour force in the Turks and Caicos is made up of unskilled and manual labour. If they are serious about developing their economy beyond tourism, then I believe that education needs to become a significant part of their economic development platform. Thankfully, a union between our country and theirs would open up Canadian universities to the roughly 36,000 people who live in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Our universities are some of the most highly ranked in the world.
5. Economic development
Finally, let’s talk economic development.
Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. And we consistently rank amongt the highest in the world in terms of education, transparency, quality of life and economic opportunities. It’s for these reasons that we’re perceived as a great place to live and invest. About one of the only things we don’t typically offer is great weather.
A union with the Turks and Caicos would obviously change that. But beyond just weather, it would also give Canada a foothold in an important region of the world and provide a stable locale for foreign investment. Similar to the way in which Miami has become the “Capital of Latin America”, the Turks and Caicos could become a meaningful center for trade and investment backed by Canadian stability.
This would benefit not only Canada, but also the Turks and Caicos, who have struggled over the years with fiscal mismanagement and corruption. In fact, the biggest challenge, I think, would be managing overdevelopment and ensuring that the growth and development happens in the most environmentally sustainable way possible.
Petitioning Stephen Harper
So there you have it, 5 reasons for why Canada should seriously consider a union and/or the potential annexation of the Turks and Caicos Islands. If you have any other ideas, or if you completely disagree with everything I said, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.
This past week we opened the doors to the presentation center for Kingston&Co Condominiums. It was pretty chaotic leading up to the opening, but everything worked out and I think our party was a great success.
These early events are an opportunity for the media to see the project and the presentation center, and for the project team to enjoy some of the fruits of their hard work. I think those times are important. When everyone is moving quickly to meet deadlines, sometimes it’s easy for things to get impersonal. So it’s nice to be able to sit back, have a glass of wine, and tell someone that you appreciate all of their hard work.
Below is another photo from the event. I’m the second from the right, wearing a sweaty pink shirt. I had planned to go home and change before the event, but I instead got wrapped up moving things around and getting the presentation center ready. On a related note, there’s a tree trunk beside the sofa in the reception area that weighs almost 400 pounds. If you can lift it on your own, or even just move it on your own, I’ll buy you a round of drinks.
If you’d like to learn more about Kingston&Co, click here. And if you get a chance to check out the presentation center, make sure you tweet me and let me know what you think.
Yesterday I had a really interesting conversation with somebody about the future of the architecture profession. We spoke about how Joshua Prince-Ramus of REX believes that architects have marginalized themselves as a result of shying away from liability. We spoke about how architecture schools need to teach more about about business and making money. And we spoke about why I decided to never practice architecture and instead become a developer.
At the end of it all, he came to more or less the same conclusion that I did in this post. He felt that as more and more trained architects choose to become developers, that maybe the future will be firms that vertically integrate both architecture and real estate development. For those of you not in the building industry, this is fairly uncommon practice today. Typically, developers retain the services of an architect to design their buildings and do not handle this in-house.
But there are firms that do. DDG out of New York and San Francisco is one example. Although there’s a subtlety worth mentioning. According to their website, they say that they often act as the “design architect” for their projects. This means that there would still need to be an “architect of record”, whose name would appear on the building permit and who would ultimately end up shouldering the liability for the design.
You see, a bifurcation has happened even within the architecture profession itself. You have “design architects” who may or may not be licensed, but do a lot of the fun design work upfront for a project. And you have production oriented firms that actually produce the technical drawings needed for construction. The fees are generally higher in the latter case (unless maybe you’re a starchitect), but the work is less creative.
The emergence of these two streams of architecture is precisely what Joshua Prince-Ramus is talking about when he says that architects have marginalized themselves by shying away from liability. He believes that architects are reducing themselves to designers and stylists, from master builders. So his argument is that architects need to reinsert themselves into more of the building process.
What I’ve been suggesting is that architects should become owners. They should insert themselves into the development process. And the reason I feel this way is because I worry about the tendency for production and construction to just be farmed out to the lowest bidder. Design and development, on the other hand, are high value creation items.
Truthfully though, I don’t really know which option is better for the profession in terms of relevance. I know which one I’m most interested in, but that could just be a personal preference. What do you think?
