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 the Gardiner East should be torn down

    Warning: This post turns into a bit of a rant near the end 🙂

    Since 2009 (well, much earlier actually), Toronto has been trying to figure out what to do with the eastern portion of the elevated Gardiner Expressway (the portion from Jarvis Street to the Don Valley Parkway). The process used to help make this decision is called an Environmental Assessment (or EA) and that’s what is currently underway. But it’s a painstakingly slow process.

    Recently though, a third public meeting was held in order to solicit feedback on the various design solutions and so there’s been a renewed interest in this city building issue. Since the beginning, my position has been that we should tear it down. And in this post I’m going to explain why I think that is exactly what the city should do. 

    But first, a bit of background.

    The EA started by identifying four “Alternative Solutions” to the problem of the Gardiner East. And they are: 

    1. Maintain the elevated expressway (Basically do nothing)
    2. Improve the urban fabric while maintaining the existing expressway
    3. Replace with a new above or below grade expressway
    4. Remove the elevated expressway and build a new boulevard

    They then went out and assigned these solutions to a bunch of architects and designers—whom are some of the world’s best—and asked them to come up with specific design proposals. These proposals are available online and that’s part of what the public has been commenting on.

    City Council seems to generally want the Gardiner down, but there are some naysayers. 

    Rob Ford doesn’t want it removed (option #1) because it’ll add to driver commute times (no surprise there) and Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong is worried that tearing it down will just lead to another wall—a wall of waterfront condos.

    But I think these views are terribly shortsighted and I’ve made my position clear by submitting a formal response through the City’s public engagement portal. To explain my view here on Architect This City, I thought the best way would be to simply share my answers. So here they are.

    What do you like?

    [slideshare id=22945545&sc=no]

    I can honestly say that I love my city. I was born in this city. And I was raised in this city. This city has given me so much, which is why I feel so compelled to try and give back to it. It’s also the reason why I’m first to defend it when people talk about how great this or that city’s waterfront is and how much ours sucks. I mean, I know ours sucks. But we’re fixing it.

    We have a lot of great plans in the pipeline for our waterfront, but there’s a remaining obstacle: our elevated expressway. Boston buried theirs. And San Francisco transformed theirs into a magnificent public space. What are we going to do with ours? Now is the time to be bold and not settle for the status quo. That’s too easy. We need to remove the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway today and the design proposal by Field Operations offers a brilliant way to do it.

    Not only is removing the Gardiner the most cost effective solution ($470M, versus $870M to maintain, $865M to improve and $1.4 billion to replace), but it’s also the most desirable from a city building standpoint.

    The Gardiner is not the only barrier. We also have the rail lines. So while repurposing the Gardiner might be doable in isolation, we simply have too much friction standing between us and the lake. We need to remove the barriers that we can. It’s for this precise reason that Field Operations spent so much time worrying about the north-south connections. And I think their “architectural sleeves” are a really interesting way to solve this problem.

    At the same time, timing is an important consideration. As the surrounding East Bayfront area develops, it’s only going to become more costly to remove this stretch of the Gardiner. If we’re going to do this, now is the time.

    Finally, I think it’s important to note that Field Operations is the landscape architecture firm behind the wildly successful High Line in New York. So what we have is a firm that made a name for itself repurposing an old elevated rail line, telling us that our own elevated structure is worthless and uninspiring. Think about that for a minute. Should we really be spending more money to salvage the Gardiner East?

    What concerns do you have?

    That we’re getting hung up on commute times as one of the key decision making criteria. It’s a red herring. Let’s face it: irrespective of whether we tear down the eastern portion of the Gardiner or not, Toronto is fucked from a transportation and infrastructure standpoint. We’re sitting on decades of disinvestment and some of the longest commute times in North America.

    Field Operations put it well when they said that the tearing down of the Gardiner East needs to be thought of as a paradigm shift. We have a 25-year transportation plan waiting to be funded. Let’s go out and do that instead of trying to sacrifice our waterfront so that suburban commuters can save a few minutes. Let’s give them a shiny new train instead. They’ll like that.

    Either that or Torontonians need to stop talking about how great Chicago’s waterfront is, because we can do it too. Now is our chance.

    What advice do you have for the Project Team as the study moves into the next phase?

    Don’t listen to Rob Ford.

  • Disrupting everything

    Last year when I started working on Dirt—which was really my first startup—I had a number of people say things to me like: “Wow, that’s quite a change, going from real estate into tech.” But that’s not the way I saw and see it.

    I don’t think you can silo industries like that anymore. Technology is touching everything. Some would even go so far as to say that every company in the world is, or will be, a software and technology company.

    The way I looked at it was that I was starting a technology-enabled real estate company. I was hoping to leverage the internet to improve the way things are done in an existing industry. Of course, by improve I really mean disrupt—which is arguably the biggest buzzword in the tech community today:

    “Disruption is not so much a trend as an especially lucrative world philosophy favored by technophilic entrepreneurs. It’s the only path towards progress. If you’re not disrupting something you might as well go collect kindling and roast raccoon meat in the hills of Cupertino.”

    A good example of how disruptive innovation is reaching all sectors of the economy, including government, is the New Haven-based startup called SeeClickFix (which I discovered via This Big City). What it does is allow citizens to report non-emergencies (like potholes) to their local government. Governments can then respond and manage these tasks. (Sorry Rob Ford. Now you don’t need to return all those phone calls.)

    But moreover, I think it shows that technology is not only going to disrupt business and industry, it’s going to disrupt the way cities function and the way we live. I don’t know what that’s ultimately going to look like, but I can already feel it underway.

    Albert Wenger, of venture capital firm Union Square Ventures, recently argued—in a talk at DLD—that we are still in the midst of a transition from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. And I buy that. With every new disruption, we’re one step closer to completely making that transition. But we’re not quite there yet.

    The Industrial Age drove people out of cities. It made cities dirty and undesirable. But in the Information Age, cities are damn important and it’s where people want to be. Look at all the people rushing back to urban centers.

    So if technology has the power to disrupt business, industry, and cities, I suggest we stop just thinking about technology in isolation and remember the powerful words of Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message.” Don’t just focus on the obvious or you’ll miss a tidal wave of change happening beneath the surface.

  • Mapping where people run

    I’ve been meaning to write this post for about a week now. I stumbled upon a set of maps via FlowingData that used public running data to plot where people run in various cities around the world. And since I love maps, I couldn’t resist.

    Here’s Toronto:

    Here’s New York:

    Here’s San Francisco:

    And here’s Philadelphia:

    For the full set of maps, click here.

    What’s interesting is how people tend to gravitate towards the water rather than the parks. In the case of Toronto, High Park is barely touched, which may have something to do with the fact that it’s too far from downtown. The data could also be skewed based on the type of people who make their running data available and where they happen to live.

    Either way, a neat set of maps.

  • Yes In My Back Yard

    Last week I called somebody a NIMBY. And though I probably shouldn’t have, it stems from the fact that I make a concerted effort to be the exact opposite: a YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard, as opposed to Not In My Back Yard).

    I appreciate that change can be difficult for a lot of people. In fact, behavioral economic theory (specifically Prospect Theory) suggests that when people are faced with probabilistic alternatives involving risk, they tend to put more weight on the potential losses. This means that the potential benefits have to be, not just marginally better, but hugely more beneficial before people will make the change.

    Because I know I’m equipped with this bias, I try and constantly remind myself that change and motion are good and that oftentimes the potential losses or negatives aren’t going to be as bad as I might initially think.

    However, I also have a counter acting bias. I recently did a personality assessment (called the DiSC assessment) and I was found to be a creator. I would agree with this. What it means is that I prefer “to live in a world of possibilities.” I’m interested not in the way things are done today, but how they could be done in the future.

    And when I think about all the things I’m passionate about—architecture, design, real estate development, cities and tech—there’s a common thread: each one is about imagining something new. Whether you’re designing a building or building a new internet platform, it’s all about possibilities. I believe that the future will be better than today. I’m an optimist.

    But I recognize that this is a distinct personality type. I’m an early adopter. And not all people are like this. That’s why the adoption curve looks the way it does. 

    What would you say is your personality type?

  • #WeAreWinter, but #AreWeSummer?

    The 2014 Winter Olympics are under way in Sochi, Russia and I’m happy to report that Canada is currently in the lead with 3 gold medals, 3 silver medals and 1 bronze medal.

    I also love our slogan: #WeAreWinter. It’s almost as good as the “Own the Podium” one associated with the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. I think it’s important to strive to be the best and I love to see us doing that.

    But beyond just sports, the Olympics can also be highly political. Consider the facts that the average daily temperature in Sochi never drops below freezing and that it’s the warmest city, ever, to host the Winter Olympics. In fact, it’s where Russians vacation to get away from the cold. 

    My only hope—through all the politics—is that the opportunity to city build isn’t lost.

    As I’ve said before, I think major sporting events like the Olympics and the Pan American Games are a wonderful opportunity to catch up on infrastructure deficits. It creates a real deadline and pushes people and government to move quicker than they otherwise would.

    It’s for this reason that I would have liked Toronto to bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics.

    A truly successful Olympic Games should leave the host city better off than it was before. It’s about the sports, but also the legacy. Here’s a fact sheet from the International Olympic Committee on the “Legacies of Games.” I would love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below regarding whether or not you think Toronto should have bid.

  • I left my heart in Jackson Hole [Video]

    I am back from Jackson Hole, but missing it. I fell in love with that town this past week. It’s a small one, but a special one. It’s filled with great food and 10,000 of some of the friendliest (and most fit) people I’ve ever met. Everyone seems to be living for the next big snow storm.

    I read somewhere before that all cities speak to us in some way. Each one has a pervasive belief system that influences us.

    Boston tells us to be smarter. New York tell us to make more money. And D.C. tells us to be more powerful. If Jackson Hole were to have a message for us, it would most certainly be to get out there and shred more powder. And there’s something to be said about that.

    It was sad to leave that kind of place, especially with 24”of snow expected this weekend. But I’m sure I’ll be back. Here’s the video we made of the trip. I hope you like it. We had far too much fun making it.

    In case you like the music, the first song is “There’s A Beast And We All Feed It” by Jake Bugg. And the second is “Fitzpleasure” by alt-J. We loved these songs so much that we played them in our gondola rides up the mountain.

  • Debating Porter’s plans

    Before going snowboarding this morning, I got into a bit of a heated debate on Twitter about Porter Airlines’ plans to expand the Toronto Island Airport and fly the new Bombardier CS100 from it. The proposal is facing a lot of opposition and, since I’m generally for it, the conversation got a bit lively.

    At one point, I called somebody a NIMBY, which was probably an unproductive thing to do. But I was trying to better understand that person’s position. The argument was that parks (ie. the Toronto Islands) and planes don’t mix and so the proposal is bad. However, since we already have planes operating out of the island today, I wanted to know if what we have today was considered acceptable and, if yes, what the precise concerns are regarding the expansion.

    In other words, I was trying to get a better sense of the threshold in which people start to feel the airport is a detriment to Toronto’s waterfront. Is it already considered a hindrance to waterfront enjoyment (it certainly isn’t for me) or is it a question of increased noise and flight volume bringing it over the edge?

    Today the airport moves over 2 million people a year. So I have a hard time buying the argument that this is only a boutique airport for the elite. Clearly, it’s filling a need in the marketplace. And so I think it would behoove us to figure out how to balance the economic gain with the concerns of urban livability. I hope that we’ll be able to do that.

    What’s your position on Porter’s plans? I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.

  • Alleys and laneways

    In addition to having an incredible mountain just 12 miles away, the town of Jackson is also a really cool place in its own right. It’s a cowboy town with endless wilderness all around it. But since it’s such a big tourist destination, the town is filled with great restaurants, art galleries, and the obligatory real estate brokerages trying to sell vacation properties.

    Here’s what the town looks like from the top of Snow King (the in-town ski mountain). Photo credit: David Stubbs for the New York Times.

    But from a land use standpoint, I also find the town really interesting because of its network of fine grain alleys. Here’s a picture of Gaslight Alley. For those of you who are regular readers of this blog, you’re probably aware that I’m a big supporter of laneway housing in Toronto. I think it’s a hidden opportunity. It could be another—more intimate—layer to the city.

    Today, building a laneway house is virtually a non-starter with the City of Toronto. Whether it’s issues of utilities or the fact that laneways don’t easily accommodate service vehicles (maybe we need smaller service vehicles), the city has a litany of reasons for why they just won’t work.

    But I’m absolutely certain that we could figure out solutions to all of the obstacles if we really put our minds to it. It’s not a question of not being able to do it, it’s a question of not wanting to do it.

  • The powder clause

    Jackson Hole has been on the top of my list of places to visit for a number of years now. And having just snowboarded it for the first time, I can honestly say that it lives up to the hype. It’s by far the most aggressive mountain I’ve ever had the pleasure of riding on. We also got lucky with 9” of fresh powder.

    But in addition to some great riding, I also learned of something new today: the “powder clause”. And from what we’ve heard from the locals, lots of employers in the region offer it. What it means is that if there’s a fresh dumping of snow, you’re allowed to take the morning off work so that you can go ski “the pow.” I think this is brilliant.

    If you’re from a big city (or you don’t ski), this may seem a bit absurd. But I think the “powder clause” underscores a growing trend happening in a lot of cities around the world. We’re seeing the rise of the consumer city. Historically, cities were all about agglomeration economies. But today, amenities matter. People choose first where they want to live and then look for a job (or start their own company).

    Some places are blessed with natural amenities. But for the rest of us, we have to work at creating our own. That’s where city building comes into play.

  • White peaks

    I like airports. And this past weekend was my first time in Denver’s. Its most obvious feature is its white fabric roof, which is intended to evoke the snow-capped mountains that surround the region (as well as teepees apparently).

    Here’s what it looks like from the inside:

    And here’s what it looks like from the outside (via Wikipedia):

    What I like about it is that it speaks to the place. In our increasingly global world, more and more of our buildings now look the same. This is what Modernist architects wanted, but I’d argue that that was a different time and place.

    Today, there’s something nice about landing in a new city and feeling like you’re somewhere different. There’s something special about architecture that speaks to its environment.

    Is there an airport that stands out for you?