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

  • A new model for the architecture profession

    Last week I provided a few suggestions for how architects might be able to transition over to real estate development. And I ended by saying that I loved architecture school, but that it could use a few more business and entrepreneurship classes. Today, I’d liked to expand on that idea.

    When I was doing my Master of Architecture at Penn, I spent a lot of time thinking about hybrid models for the architecture profession. I was trying to figure out a way to reconcile my love of design with my desire to be more of a building entrepreneur.

    I was interested in what Jonathan Segal was doing down in San Diego with his “architect as developer” approach. And I was really taken by a lecture that Joshua Prince-Ramus (formerly of OMA, now REX) gave where he talked about how architects have marginalized themselves (away from being the master builder) by shying away from liability.

    Out of all the models, conflating architecture and development seems to me like a real possibility. I believe that good developers understand good design and that good architects understand what’s good for the market. So why not merge the two?

    We know that the architecture profession is facing significant challenges; fewer and fewer architecture school grads are getting licensed and actually become a bona fide architect. Some think this calls for licensure reform, but I’m also interested in revisiting the model in its entirety.

    Imagine if every architecture school taught students how to design a building and then go out and actually get it leased up and built. Is this too much to ask of one discipline?

    I can see firms naturally splitting up roles between those who prefer the design side and those who prefer the selling and business side, but is there any reason why the same firm couldn’t be handling both?

  • Capital of the world

    If you had to pick one, which city would you consider to be the “capital of the world?” There are no other instructions. Just select whatever first comes to mind. If for whatever reason you can’t see the poll below, click here.

    If you’re curious about where the above list of cities came from, they’re simply all of the Alpha++, Alpha+ and Alpha cities according to the Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC). The list may be a few years old though.

  • What signage says about your city

    I woke up this morning in the City of London, Ontario, to a parking ticket. Apparently, I had committed an infraction by parking between the hours of 3:00 am – 5:00 am.

    Here’s what the sign looked like, directly in front of my car. There were no other signs nearby other than one at the end of the street telling me where the parking area stopped.

    image

    Perhaps I’m missing something, but based on the signage provided, there’s absolutely no way for me to know that parking is not permitted between the precise hours of 3:00 am and 5:00 am. And truthfully, this seems like an odd set of hours to want to enforce. 

    If there were some feasible way for me to fight this ticket, I would. But since cities make this purposely difficult, I’m just going to pay it. Even though I feel like fighting it out of principle.

    But this post isn’t for me to complain about a parking ticket.

    When I got the ticket this morning, it reminded me of a “theory” that someone once told me at an Urban Land Institute conference a few years back in Washington D.C. I actually can’t remember who it was, but the idea was that you can tell how global a city is by the quality of its signage and wayfinding signage.

    I’m intrigued by this proposition because, if you think about it, a city unaccustomed to receiving outsiders has less of a need for quality signage. As a local, you begin to create your own mental map of the city and you intuitively start to understand what’s allowed, such as where you can park. The importance of good signage somewhat diminishes.

    But outsiders are coming with no understanding. They’re looking for directions and instructions. So you should make sure that your city is giving it to them. However, at the same time, there are lots of big global cities, such as New York, which are or were notorious for bad signage. So signage quality is probably not perfectly correlated with globalization.

    Regardless, signage matters. It’s one of the ways in which a city talks at you and others. How clearly does your city communicate?

  • Transitioning from architecture to development

    A few years ago during a class at the Rotman School when we were all introducing ourselves, I had a professor ask why all architects seem to want to become developers. He asked it because there were 3 architects (or at least architect-trained) in the class who were either currently working in development or planning to move into development following their MBA.

    Indeed, it is pretty common for architects to make this jump. So much so that I’m often asked (as recently as last night) about how I made the transition from architecture to development. Given the frequency of this question, I figured it would be worthwhile to turn my response into a blog post—particularly since I did make the decision to write more about what it means to be a developer.

    The first thing I should say is that I’ve never really worked as an architect. I interned at an architecture firm one summer, but that’s about it. I’m not licensed as an architect and I have no plans of ever becoming licensed. Therefore, I’m technically not allowed to call myself one, which is why I often say “architect-trained.”

    However, this doesn’t mean that I didn’t face a certain degree of stigmatization while I was completing my Master of Architecture and looking for my first real estate job. The real estate community often perceives architects as being impractical, fanciful and generally poor with money and business.

    Part of this, I think, has to the with the fact that design schools often don’t like to talk about making money. It’s taboo. Design is supposed to be something purer and grander than money. Maybe that’s why it’s not uncommon for even the most famous of architects—such as Louis Kahn—to die deeply in debt.

    But I think this perspective is bullshit. Which is why I spent every single one of my electives during my Master of Architecture over at the business school taking finance, economics and real estate classes. I was determined to be just as good as the MBAs at “the numbers.” And even became a teaching assistant for a real estate economics class.

    So my first piece of advice to architects looking to make the transition to development is that you need to overcome the perception that you don’t understand money and business. You need to demonstrate that you can crunch numbers and that you know how to make money for investors.

    This could mean getting an MBA or Master of Real Estate Development, taking extracurricular classes, starting a blog, or just convincing somebody in real estate to give you a chance so that you have it on your resume. Whatever it is, you need to reposition your personal brand so that it no longer says architect.

    This is important because, from my experience, if a real estate company is used to hiring people with business degrees, then it’s going to be tough to get them to pay attention to you and your architecture degree. They just don’t understand the value that you might be able to bring to the organization (and you do bring value).

    My second piece of advice is to find developers who have an architecture background and specifically reach out to them. There are lots of us. They’ll be sympathetic to your background and will probably give you more time of day. But you’ll need to come prepared with the right tool chest. Demonstrate to them that you have the skills necessary to be a developer (see above).

    As I’ve said before, developers are, in many ways, a jack of all trades. So the more you can master all of those trades, the more likely you’ll get some hiring manager to take a risk on you. But when you do finally make that transition, I believe that you’ll be better for it.

    Not only because architects understand the building process, but because architects are trained to have an inherent sense of responsibility for the built environment. We get upset when building are ugly and public spaces suck. But we also know what will make them better.

    The way I see it, by becoming a developer you’re really just learning how to execute on your ideas. It’s one thing to know what makes a building beautiful, but it’s another thing to go out and raise the capital and build the damn thing.

    So I don’t regret any of my architecture degrees. I got so much out of them. And I firmly believe that design is only going to become more important. Designers, after all, are the new rock stars. We just need a few more business and entrepreneurship classes in architecture schools.

  • How Bloomberg transformed the streets of New York

    Here’s a great video by Streetfilms that shows the incredible transformation of New York’s public realm during the Bloomberg administration. I found it via The Urbanophile blog. It’s about 5 minutes long.

    Video Description: “There’s nothing more dramatic than looking back five or ten years at Streetfilms footage to see how much the streets of New York City have changed. In this wonderful montage, check out the incredible changes at Times Square, Herald Square, the Brooklyn waterfront, and many other places that outgoing NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and her staff have intrepidly transformed.”

    It just goes to show what can be accomplished with the right leader and political will. I wish we (Toronto) had a mayor who understood the value of beautiful public spaces and bike lanes. It’s unfortunate that these things often become attached to political orientation. This shouldn’t be the case. It’s just good city building.

  • How Facebook is using its data to analyze global migration patterns

    More and more people are moving to cities. This much we know. But in our fast paced world, census data is becoming increasingly limited in its ability to tell us exactly where and how people are moving.

    Thankfully we now have Facebook. 

    image

    I just discovered a fascinating study conducted by the Facebook Data Science Team called “Coordinated Migration.” What they did was anonymously analyze every Facebook user that has inputted both a hometown and a current city to see where people of a particular hometown are most likely to live, today.

    But more specifically, the study is looking at coordinated flows, rather than just total flows to a particular city. A “coordinated migration” is defined as an instance where “a significant proportion of the population of a city has migrated, as a group, to a different city.”

    What the study found (perhaps not surprisingly) was that the vast majority of coordinated migrations are happening in countries that are in the midst of rapid urbanization. It’s a case of people moving within the country to its largest city.

    Here are the top coordinated migration destinations:

    If you’re interested in the nitty gritty of how they actually computed the coordinated migrations, check out the original post by the Facebook Data Science Team.

  • Who’s going to disrupt real estate?

    There’s an interesting article in Forbes (from last week) called, “Invest in the Disruptors of the Real Estate Industry.” It’s by Ross Gerber who runs a wealth and investment management firm out of LA called Gerber Kawasaki. He’s also a fellow Penn alum.

    I like the article because I agree with the problem he’s identified. The real estate market is imperfect and inefficient. We need a proper electronic marketplace.

    But I disagree with where he feels the solution will (or may) come from. I don’t think it’ll come from an incumbent like Zillow. They make money from agents and if they’re perceived to be driving down commissions, those customers are going to flee.

    Instead, I believe it’s going to come from a new entrant—a startup. And like most disruptors it’ll probably seem benign and, frankly, a bit crazy at first. Agents will dismiss it as a silly tool that will never cut into their business.

    But slowly and surely, that’s exactly what it’ll do.

  • Pick one or the other

    Two days ago I posted a neat interactive map of carbon footprints across America. It was taken from an Atlantic Cities article. But in the same post, I questioned the (Atlantic Cities) article’s headline and main assertion that increasing population density won’t help to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

    This didn’t make sense to me.

    Well it turns out that the supporting research data was slightly misinterpreted. According to the Per Square Mile blog, the UC Berkeley study associated with the interactive map reveals a more nuanced relationship between population density and carbon emissions. It turns out that people who live in the middle of nowhere (rural residents) actually have fairly low carbon footprints. Even though they’re reliant on cars, they tend to drive and consume relatively little.

    And so initially, as population densities increase, so do carbon footprints. That is until it reaches about 3,000 people per square mile. At that point, carbon emissions start to drop off dramatically—roughly 35% on average from suburb to city.

    Below is a graph I found in the comment section of the original Atlantic Cities article that demonstrates this phenomenon. Population density is on the x-axis and carbon emissions are on the y-axis.

    image

    So here’s the big takeaway. If you’re looking to optimize around your carbon footprint, you need to pick a side: Either be urban or be rural. But don’t be somewhere in the middle. Don’t be suburban.

  • Competitiveness and currency

    The Globe and Mail published an article yesterday morning called, “Why a lower loonie is (mostly) good for Canada.” It talks about the recent decline of the Canadian dollar from parity last May to roughly USD $0.92 today. But that the drop is essentially because of a rising US dollar. 

    Irrespective of what’s causing the devaluation though, the article takes the tone that it’s generally good for the country:

    “On net, this could be seen as a good thing because it’s making Canadian goods and services more competitive,” said Michael Devereux, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver School of Economics.

    But this viewpoint always gets me concerned. 

    Canadian goods and services shouldn’t be competitive because they’re cheaper; they should be competitive because they’re the best damn good and services in the world. And so my fear with statements, like the one above, is that it almost makes us believe that a weak dollar is a prerequisite for competitiveness. It’s not.

    In fact, research done by Professor Walid Hejazi at the Rotman School has shown that a weak Canadian dollar actually lowers productivity levels and creates a disincentive for innovation. Why bother to innovate when you can always get your goods and services to market at a lower cost than your competitors?

    Thankfully, the outgoing Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada (and upcoming Dean of the Rotman School), Tiff Macklem, has acknowledged this perspective. In a talk at Queen’s University last January, he said:

    “What should Canadian businesses do? First, don’t count on a weaker Canadian dollar. Hoping for a weaker Canadian dollar is not a business plan. A sustainable export strategy cannot rely on expectations of a more favourable exchange rate, since Canada is likely to remain an attractive investment destination.”

    That sounds like good advice to me.

  • Interactive map of carbon footprints across America

    Atlantic Cities recently published an article called, “Beefing Up Population Density Won’t Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” And in it, they link to a really neat interactive map created at UC Berkeley that outlines the carbon emissions of nearly every zip code in America (2013 numbers). 

    Not surprisingly, it shows that urban folk generally have a much smaller carbon footprint as compared to suburbanites. Here’s what New York City looks like (green is lower carbon emissions and red is higher):

    image

    But the article also goes on to say that the solution is not to work towards increasing population densities in either urban centers or suburbs. And that, in fact, efforts to increase population densities in the suburbs would only make things worse—emission levels have been shown to only go up and then new suburbs end up getting formed around the intensified ones.

    I understand the last point about endless suburbs, but I don’t fully understand this recommendation. Do carbon emissions go up in the suburbs when population densities are increased because it still remains car dependent and so all you have is more people driving?

    Intuitively, it would seem that if more people stopped driving, shopped locally and lived in more compact spaces, carbon emissions would fall. But perhaps I’m missing something.

    If anyone has any insights on this topic, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below or on twitter.