I'm a real estate developer based in Toronto. This is my daily blog for city builders. Join over 15,000 followers and subscribers. Daily email at 6AM (ET).
This morning, I was on site at Parkview Mountain House reviewing construction progress and finalizing some finishes with our contractor. And during that time, he said two things to me that I was frankly happy to hear.
The first is that we are his only client — ever — where they didn’t need to touch the construction contingency line item. (Knock on wood. We are about 2 months out from completion at this point.) And the second is that he loves working with us because we are also his most decisive client.
Now to be fair, both of these things are easier to do when you’re not building your own home, or something else for yourself. The process becomes less emotional and more just about business.
Even still, this is generally the aspiration with all construction projects. As an owner, you want to leave your contingency untouched. You want to minimize changes. And you want to make decisions as fast as humanly possible.
In fact, this is a prime example of the mantra that “any decision is better than no decision.” And that’s because poor decision making is the kiss of death for construction projects. You need to keep things moving.
I also find that decisions tend to seem more daunting in the moment. When you’re staring at 37 different shades of white paint and being asked to pick just one, it can be easy to get analysis paralysis. Is a yellow white with a subtle green undertone really the right one?
But more often than not, when the project is done, you’re probably not going to remember the other 36 shades of white you didn’t select. Or least that’s been my experience. So choosing speed over perfection is typically your safest bet.
When we build next to transit, we often call this transit-oriented development.
What’s interesting about this moniker is that it implies we’re doing something a little special — something out of the ordinary. And I guess that makes sense because, in many cities, it is often out of the ordinary.
That’s why you don’t hear people at real estate conferences saying, “check out this newcutting edge car-oriented development that our firm is developing.” That doesn’t need to be specified.
But at the end of the day, I’m not sure how special transit-oriented development really is; it’s basically just urban development. Meaning, you put density on top of and next to transit stations and then more people take transit. That’s how this works.
On that note, here is an interesting study from the School of Cities that looked at Toronto’s transit network and how the populations around each station have changed (or not changed) between 1996 and 2021 (census data).
If you look at the various transit lines, you’ll see that, in some cases, like downtown, we have added a lot of new transit-oriented development. This is good. Populations increased.
But in many/most other cases, populations remained flat; or worse, they declined. This is a serious problem, and it shows how land use restrictions are forcing us to underutilize our existing transit assets.
Maybe what we need to do is stop thinking about transit-oriented development as something special, and instead remind ourselves that this is standard operating procedure. It’s just what you do next to transit.
Thanks to Sam Kulendran for sharing the above study with me.
“I think that street art is illegal and it has to stay illegal.” –Invader
I was in an Uber on the Don Valley Parkway today and, for some reason, all of the graffiti on its sound barriers caught my attention in a way that it hasn’t before. Maybe it’s because I don’t travel enough by car or maybe the highway people haven’t yet done their spring cleaning. Either way, I caught myself thinking, “Hey, a lot of this looks pretty cool. Here are boring and utilitarian sound barriers that have been covered with colorful things.”
Of course, street art is a tricky thing. Because, at the end of the day, it is, as French artist Invader says, illegal. It is an act of vandalism. And so there is a fine line between street art and criminal behaviour. When I leave my home in the morning and I discover that someone has spray painted nonsense on one of its exterior walls, it absolutely pisses me off. How about I come spray paint your home?
But what if it wasn’t nonsense? What if Invader had decided to “invade” Toronto and I instead found a pixelated neon green Pac-Man outside of my lobby? It would still be illegal and it would still be vandalism, but I would frankly feel excited that Invader had decided to come and bestow my home with one of his art pieces. I would then proceed to take a picture and send it to all of my family and friends.
Now, obviously it makes a difference when it’s a known artist. Context matters. But Invader had to start his illegal pursuits somewhere. And I find it interesting to think about the line where something is able to pass, in our minds, from being an illegal nuisance to a desirable art piece. I experienced moments of that along the Don Valley Parkway today.
One of my arguments around return to office is that we have not yet reached a post-pandemic equilibrium. Meaning, we’re still in the process of coming back and it’s probably too early to say where exactly we will end up.
The latest data (above) from the Strategic Regional Research Alliance (which is for Toronto) seems to suggest exactly this. Office occupancy continues to steadily increase from its low point in the middle of COVID.
We are now seeing an average weekly occupancy of 63%, a low day occupancy (Friday) of 40%, and a peak day occupancy (Wednesday) of 73%. All of these figures are relative to the number of people working in offices prior to the pandemic.
It is, once again, hard to say where this will ultimately settle. But my gut tells me that this climb still has a ways to go.
What it shows is the average size of new single-family houses in the US. And what it tells us is that median and average floor areas are falling. They are now roughly back to where they were in 2010, following the 2007-2008 financial crisis. This is noteworthy because it shows that homebuilders are responding to lower affordability. Interest rates went up, buyers can now afford less home, and so the market is responding by shrinking square footages to reduce sticker prices. It is the same reason that condominiums also tend to follow a similar size trendline (at least here in Toronto); it’s about affordability. That said, if you go back even further in the above chart — to 1999 — the trendline is up and to the right. Meaning that when the market allows, the average new single-family house is generally getting bigger. That also tells us something.
The 15-minute city is a popular topic these days. So here is a recent study that used GPS data from 40 million US mobile phones to estimate the percentage of consumption-related trips that actually adhere to this concept. The unsurprising result:
The overwhelming majority of Americans have never experienced anything resembling a 15-minute city. The median resident, we found, makes only 14% of their consumption trips within a 15-minute walking radius.
There is, of course, regional variation. For New York City, the data suggests that 42% of consumption-related trips occur within a 15-minute walking radius. Whereas in more sprawling cities like Atlanta, it’s only 10% of trips. Again, this is not surprising. But it begs the question: What should we do?
The challenge is that 15-minute cities generally require built environments that are dense, conducive to walking, and filled with a concentration of different amenities. And this is more or less the opposite of the prototypical suburban model, where the car and single-use zoning tends to spread everything out.
The good news is that zoning is relatively easy to change. For instance, if we want to allow corner stores in our residential neighborhoods, that is a decision we can make. The greater hurdle will be transforming car-oriented communities into places where people might actually want to walk. This is much more difficult.
If you’re looking to block new development, drive up the cost of housing, and appear “progressive” all at the same time, one generally effective technique is to do it under the guise of historic preservation. San Francisco is really good at this, as are many other cities. And it works because, who doesn’t think that history is important?
This exact thing just transpired in San Francisco, where earlier this year Supervisor Aaron Peskin passed an ordinance enacting new density controls for most development in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District, the Jackson Square Historic District, and the Jackson Square Historic District Extension (solid neighborhood names).
Of course, sometimes you can run into resistance when you’re trying to push through new anti-housing policies. And in this case, San Francisco Mayor London Breed actually vetoed Peskin’s bill. In a letter dated March 14, 2024, she wrote:
Restricting new housing runs counter to the goals of our Housing Element, which the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved just over a year ago. It also runs counter to what we need to do to make this City a place that creates opportunities for new homes for the people who need them today and for future generations growing up in San Francisco.
This ordinance passes off anti-housing policy in the guise of historic protections. Existing rules already protect against impacts to historic resources. I believe we can add new homes while also supporting and improving the vibrancy of our unique neighborhoods. Many areas of San Francisco, including eastern neighborhoods like the South of Market, Potrero Hill, and the Mission, have also already removed density limits to encourage new housing.
However, her veto was ultimately overridden by the Board of Supervisors and so, as far as I understand it, the above density controls stand.
In 2023, there were 379,000 babies born in Italy. This is down from 393,000 babies in the prior year and represents a new record low. Already in 2022, the number of births was noted as being the fewest since Italy’s unification in 1861. The result is a “demographic winter.” Of course, this challenge is not unique to Italy. It is happening in most developed countries. Korea, for example, has a fertility rate somewhere around 0.72 babies per woman. Because of this, there are a lot of people in the world trying to figure out how to encourage more births.
Meloni, herself a mother of a single child, has said it is a priority for her government to increase the birth rate and encourage women to have more babies “for the simple reason that we want Italy to have a future again”.
So what’s causing this?
One seemingly logical explanation could be that the employment rates for women and men are basically the same now. Fewer women are staying at home and so there’s less time to have and raise children. In fact, the opposite is true. If you look at fertility rates across Europe, high birth rates tend to correlate with high employment rates for women. I guess families need to be able to afford children. Here’s an excerpt from a Guardian article (c. 2015) on the topic of fertility:
The map of the fertility rate in European countries more or less overlaps with that of women in work. In countries with relatively buoyant populations, such as France and Scandinavia, women play an important part in the labour market. According to data for 2010 published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the employment rate for women aged 24 to 54 in work was 83.8% in France, 84.4% in Finland, 85.6% in Denmark and 87.5% in Sweden, barely lower than the equivalent figures for men. In contrast, in southern Europe and Japan the share of women in work was much lower: only 64.4% of them had a job in Italy, 71.6% in Japan, 72.2% in Greece and 78.3% in Spain.
Staying on the theme of being able to afford kids, another possible explanation might be that kids are expensive and so you need strong family-friendly government policies to help support them. While this I’m sure helps, there’s data to suggest that the correlation between these policies and birth rates is actually fairly weak. That’s why, even though many developed countries have expanded such policies, birth rates continue to fall. Here’s a graphic by John Burn-Murdoch from FT:
So what the hell is it then? Well there is another possible explanation and it is that it’s more of a cultural thing. In the above article, John makes the argument that a number of other more important factors are leading to declining birth rates. Namely, more people are choosing to live alone, and not as a couple. Priorities have shifted, where family formation is no longer seen as central to a fulfilling life. And more young people are generally anxious. (He doesn’t get into why but I’m sure that it’s possible to blame TikTok.)
But what really stood out to me was this graphic:
Since the 1960s, parenting has gotten systematically more intense for parents. The average number of hours per day spent by mothers on “hands-on parenting activities” has grown significantly in most developed countries. However, there is one clear exception: France. It turns out that the French are, at least based on this data, less likely to be so-called helicopter parents. Parenting is less hands-on, kids get more freedom and — perhaps because of this — France has the highest fertility rate in Europe at over 1.8 babies per woman.
This is not to say that France’s family-friendly policies aren’t doing something as well. I would imagine they are. But the above makes intuitive sense to me. If you create an environment where the threshold to be considered a good parent is constantly becoming more duanting and more life-consuming, it’s no surprise to me that more and more people are simply saying, no thank you.
It seems like just yesterday that I wrote about Canada’s population surpassing 40 million people. Because today, some 9 months later, we’re already over 41 million.
Since 2000, we are the fastest growing country in the G-7:
This is, in many ways, a positive thing. But it’s also a serious problem if, among other things, we don’t build enough new housing (source):
In 2013, Canada ranked 13th out of 170 countries in meeting the basic needs of citizens, according to data tracked by Social Progress Imperative. By 2023, it had fallen to 39th, in large part because of a lack of affordable housing.
For more on this topic, here is a recent article from Bloomberg talking broadly about Canada’s declining social safety net.
If you’ve ever been to Rome, then you’ve probably been to the Trevi Fountain. It is, arguably, the most famous fountain in the world. And if you’ve ever been to the Trevi Fountain, then you’ve probably thrown change into it, over your left shoulder, and hoped for good things. Lots of people do this. I did it when I was there in 2007 as a grad student. And in 2016, the fountain collected nearly US$1.5 million in change, all of which was (and still is) donated to a Catholic charity. But I can’t help but wonder if this number is declining at all. I mean, I couldn’t tell you the last time I handled physical money, especially coins. Though maybe this is such an entrenched tradition that people seek out change for this very purpose. The desire to want to believe things that aren’t true can be a strong one.
BRANDON DONNELLY 