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.

  • Urban bifurcation

    In light of Bill de Blasio being elected yesterday as the new mayor of New York City, I thought I would post this interesting graphic I found on Atlantic Cities:

    image

    What it shows is a clear split.

    If you live in Manhattan or nearby areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, you most likely saw your property values rise from 2008 to 2012. However, if you live on the outskirts of the city, you may have seen your property values fall as much as 20% (the darkest red areas).

    This shift back to city centers has been well documented and labeled, by some, as The Great Inversion. But in many ways it’s a symptom of a greater phenomenon at work: rising income inequality.

    It’s happening in New York. It’s happening in Toronto. And in many other global cities. New York VC Fred Wilson believes that the solution lies in the three Es: education, empowerment and entrepreneurship. That sounds like a great start to me.

  • Richard Florida on why creativity is the new economy

    Richard Florida recently gave a talk at the Rotman School as part of Toronto’s “Big City, Big Ideas” lecture series. It was called: Why Creativity Is the New Economy. You can watch it here via Rotman. It’s about an hour long.

    If you’re familiar with the work of Richard Florida, you’ll find much of what he talks about familiar. But there is one point that I think is absolutely worth reiterating again, and again: The new economic unit of our time is the city. It used to be nations but, in today’s world, cities trump nations, provinces and states in terms economic importance.

    Florida has long stressed this point in his work and I think he’s absolutely right. The problem, however, is that our governance structures are ill-suited to deal with this shift. There are too many layers of government and our cities do not have nearly enough autonomy. 

    Toronto is also facing a profound leadership deficit at the municipal level, to say the least (See Rob Ford). This cannot continue. Strong municipal leaders are critical to our sustained global economic competitiveness. It’s every global city for themselves and I, for one, want to win.

    To give you an example of the dramatic rise of cities, take a look at this recent TechCrunch article on billion dollar startups. If you take a look at learning number 9, you’ll see an incredible interesting fact: San Francisco—not “the Valley”—is now home to the most billion dollar startups. Startups are eschewing the suburbs for the city.

    I’ve written a lot on this trend, but I still don’t think that our governments have truly woken up to the fact that, in the new economy, our cities are our most important asset.

  • Express trains

    A lot of people love New York. They love it for the culture, the nightlife, the shopping, the opportunities, as well as for many other reasons. And these are all great reasons. But being the city geek that I am, there’s another reason I think New York is great: express trains.

    Broadly speaking express trains are simply trains that run faster than other trains on a network. In the case of New York, there are express trains and local trains. The latter stop at every station and the former typically just stop at major transfer points.

    To make this all work, the New York system uses a 4 track system. There are 2 tracks headed in each direction with the local train on the outside track and the express train on the inner track. On stations where the express trains stop, the 2 tracks split from each other and the platform sits in the middle so that you can switch across the platform from express to local (and vice versa).

    The benefit of express trains is obvious. It makes it significantly faster to travel long distances. And it makes, in a lot of cases, taking the subway the fastest alternative. That’s how transit should be.

  • I just pledged my support to dramatically improve transit in the Toronto region

    I care a lot about transit.

    I fundamentally believe that it needs to be the backbone of any well functioning and thriving metropolis. As the global economy continues to become an increasingly more urban one, we are seeing the rise of cities at a scale the world has never seen before.

    Tokyo is over 37 million people. Jakarta is almost 27 million. Seoul is almost 23 million. And the list goes on. With cities of this size, do we really think it’s reasonable for everybody to be driving around in cars? It ain’t going to work.

    Here’s an image from the Guardian, with the title, “Imagine if Paris had as many new cars as Mumbai”:

    Now, by global standards, Toronto is a relatively small city, at just over 6 million people in the region.

    But that doesn’t mean we don’t have challenges. In my view, the single biggest threat facing Toronto’s long term economic competitiveness is our severe infrastructure deficit. It’s impacting productivity levels, social cohesion, the environment, our global brand and many other things.

    Because of this belief, I’ve become interested in the work of CivicAction. It’s a group of non-partisan civic leaders who care about the future of our city. They have 3 areas of focus:

    1. Accelerating regional transportation
    2. Enhancing the region’s economic performance
    3. Fostering inclusion and resilience

    They’ve just launched a pledge that allows Torontonians to make their voice heard to elected officials. I just pledged to support new ways to raise funds for a better transportation network, and I would encourage you to do the same if you care about the future of our city. I know I certainly do.

    At the time of writing this post, 2,821 members of the general public and 126 elected officials had pledged.

  • Why I like Porter and the island airport

    I’m going to New York City tonight. I’ll be flying Porter from the island airport. And I’ll probably walk there.

    I’m a big fan of Porter and, while I’ve noticed some minor slippage over the last few years, it’s still one of the best flying experiences in the city.

    But the island airport has always been a contentious subject. Stopping a bridge to the island was a fundamental part of our last mayor’s original election campaign.

    Today the contentiousness is around expanding the airport so that it flies further using “jets.” Primarily people appear concerned about noise and that the runway will need to be expanded out and into Lake Ontario to a certain extent.

    As someone who lives along the waterfront, I really don’t share the same concerns.

    For one, the “whisper jets” are supposed to produce the same amount of noise as the current fleet, which don’t bother me in the least. I hear yappy dogs barking more than I hear planes.

    Secondly, I think the island airport is fantastic from an economic development standpoint. If we were in Europe, Toronto would have high speed rail connections to New York City, Montreal, and other cities.

    But it’s not Europe and we don’t have those rail lines. What we do have though is short haul flights from the island which, similarly, allow people to leave the city from downtown.

    This may not seem like a big deal, but an extra hour can mean the difference been making and missing a morning meeting or whether your trip needs to be overnight or not.

    If you’re against the expansion, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below. Debate is important.

  • We need a new mayor

    I can’t believe that Ford is still our mayor. In fact, I still can’t believe we elected him in the first place.

    In case you missed it, Toronto’s Police Chief announced today that they are in possession of a video depicting Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine. Outside of Canada, it was reported in the Huffington Post, the Guardian, as well as many other places.

    It’s an embarrassment for Toronto. It’s an embarrassment for Canada. 

    But even after all of this, Ford came forward today and said that he will not resign:

    “I have no reason to resign. I’m going to go back and return my phone calls. I’m going to be out doing what the people elected me to do and that’s save taxpayers’ money and run a great government that we’ve been running.”

    Toronto is a global city. And yet we have this profound leadership deficit. Today our successes are in spite of our governance. I know that there is a lot talent in this city so, please, somebody step forward.

    We need a new mayor.

  • Walking, biking and taking transit

    Almost 70% of commutes in New York City are done by walking, biking or taking transit. That’s the highest of any American city according to Atlantic Cities:

    Probably the biggest driver of this is urban density. That’s because walking, biking and taking transit becomes impractical when you live in a sprawling city. If you want to get people out of their cars, pay attention to the urban fabric of your city.

    As someone who used to drive to work (out of necessity), but now relies predominately on public transit, I see one of the big advantages as time. If you’re like me, you probably feel time poor. Taking transit gives me a block of time in which to respond to emails, catch up on reading and generally just think.

    In fact, this blog post was written on the subway.

  • Balancing progress

    Some buildings should be torn down. And others should not be. The challenge, sometimes, is figuring out which is which. But when a great building is torn down, I get upset. 

    I get upset because good architecture should represent the place and era in which it was built. This means that, in a lot of cases, it’ll never be replicated. When it’s gone, it’s gone.

    Take for example the old Penn Station in New York City. Designed by renowned architectural firm McKim, Mead, and White, the station opened in 1910 and was an iconic Beaux-Arts structure. Here’s an historic photo:

    In 1963 the building was demolished. It was eventually replaced with a building that, I think most people today would agree, is quite awful. And while it did teach New York City a lesson about historic preservation, the loss still sucks.

    Ultimately I think that preservation is about balance. I’m obviously pro-development but, at the same time, I don’t believe in erasing our history.

  • Prospect Theory

    I just read an interesting chapter from Tim Smith’s book, “Pricing Strategy: Setting Price Levels, Managing Price Discounts and Establishing Price Structures.” It’s Chapter 5: Psychological Influences on Price Sensitivity.

    The chapter covers a number of pricing phenomenons, such as why prices ending in .99 tend to convey a discount and why whole prices ending in 0 tend to speak more to quality. It’s for this reason that art work is typically priced using simple round numbers.

    But one of most interesting theories from the chapter is that of Prospect Theory. Not only because of its impact on pricing strategies, but because, I think, it also applies to the real estate development business.

    Prospect Theory essentially describes the way people make decisions in the face of uncertainty. The two big takeaways for me are (1) that potential losses carry more weight than potential gains and (2) that both losses and gains experience diminishing returns.

    What this effectively means is that people, when faced with risk, tend to focus more on the negatives, and the potential losses, than on the positives. This means that the gains just can’t match the losses, they have to be significantly greater if you’re going to inspire action (a purchasing decision, a change in behaviour, or whatever).

    The second point basically means that these gains and losses become muted after a certain point. If you hit someone with enough of either, eventually they reach a point where they become desensitized in a way. Each additional amount of gain or loss produces less and less impact.

    Besides the obvious point of making sure that your product or service results in lots of gain for your customer, there are a couple of other things you can do to respond to this theory.

    The first is to “bundle losses” and “unbundle gains”. In other words, hit people with all the losses at once and then spread out the gains. What this does is maximize the psychological perception of gains and minimize the perception of losses because, remember, after a while people start to discount the losses.

    The other thing you can do is transfer losses, which is often just the cost itself, from direct to indirect. Big box stores, as an example, are great at this. They offer low prices (a direct cost) in exchange for greater indirect costs: higher transportation costs to the user, greater environmental impact, and so on. Studies show that people feel direct costs much more than indirect costs.

    There are a bunch of things you can do based on this theory, but again, one of the most fascinating things for me was how it also applies to the real estate industry. There’s a well known acronym in the industry called NIMBY. It stands for Not In My Back Yard, and it’s used pejoratively to refer to people who oppose development in their community.

    However, if you look at NIMBY’ism through the lens of Prospect Theory, you realize that it’s almost an innate human reaction. Development and construction is disruptive and the end result is change in somebody’s community. And I suspect that most residents view it as a risky and uncertain situation. Therefore, it’s no wonder that they’re first reaction is opposition. They’re weighing the potential losses more than the potential gains.

    So maybe we developers just need to apply a little Prospect Theory. We need to get better at producing and communicating gains.

  • Paul Reichmann, dead at 83

    This past Friday, Paul Reichmann passed away in Toronto. He was 83. For those in the real estate business, Paul was a legend. He was the developer behind landmark office projects such as First Canadian Place in Toronto, World Financial Center in New York and Canary Wharf in London.

    He was the man behind Olympia & York, which by the late 80s was one of the largest real estate development firms in the world, making the Reichmann family the 7th richest family in the world. Their net worth reached $12.8 billion at its peak. In 1990 they owned 8% of New York’s commercial office space. This was more than twice as much as the Rockefellers.

    But what makes the Reichmann story so fascinating is the beginning and end of it.

    Paul was born in Vienna, but his family fled the Nazis and came to Toronto like many others at the time. He and his brothers setup a tiling company called Olympia Tile and its this business that eventually led them into real estate. 

    Paul became known for taking on huge risks. He believed firmly in the principles of risk and reward.

    I remember when I was at Penn hearing stories about Olympia & York from the Dean at the time, Gary Hack (a Canadian). He used to tell us about the phenomenal amounts of leverage that O&Y used to take on in order to scale.

    But ultimately it was this leverage that brought them down. In 1992, Olympia & York went bankrupt and the family was left with a net worth of less than $100 million. Still a great sum of money, but nowhere near the $12.8 billion they once had. The New York Times called it “one of the most astonishing financial collapses in history.”

    But in many ways, this is not an uncommon developer story. Real estate development is risky. And Paul did eventually rebuild. Not to where he was before, but he did come back. He became Chairman of Canary Wharf in London and went on to develop the tallest tower in Latin America.

    Last week Toronto lost one of its most prolific real estate minds. Paul was also largely part of an era that no longer exists. The real estate business in the 80s wasn’t as institutionalized as it is today. It was filled with larger than life individuals, such as Paul, taking on huge personal risks. It must have been an exciting time to be in real estate.

    Thanks for everything you’ve done for Toronto, Paul.