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

  • Investors vs. end users

    Over the years, we have spoken a lot about the role that investors play in Toronto’s pre-construction condominium market. In the media, they are often spoken about pejoratively. They are seen as being a well-capitalized group that outbids end-users for a limited supply of new housing.

    But on the other hand, we know that (1) they have been a major contributor to new rental housing in this city (they filled the gap after we decided in the 1970s that we didn’t like purpose-built rentals) and that (2) they play an important function in getting new housing financed.

    For better or for worse, we know that, without an investor market, there would have been far fewer new homes constructed over the last cycle. Pre-sales are generally always a prerequisite for a construction loan. And the fastest, and therefore safest, way to get pre-sales is/was to target investors.

    But the world has changed since then. Investor demand has diminished. So much so that you could argue that the opposite is now true.

    I was speaking to my friend Christopher Bibby this morning and he reminded me that end-users, who are passionate about specific projects and neighborhoods, are the more resilient demand base during a downturn. Because if you need a place to live, you need a place to live.

    Perhaps it’s no coincidence that every single sale that we have had at Junction House this year has been to an end-user who moved in.

  • More sellers than buyers

    This week, Urbanation released its condominium market update for Q1-2024. And I’d like to point out two data points. Firstly, across the Greater Toronto & Hamilton Area (GTHA), there were 1,461 new condominium sales for the quarter.

    This is the lowest quarterly total since Q1-2009 (the global financial crisis) and the second lowest total since the mid-1990s. (Remember when we spoke about right now being the toughest market since the early 90s?)

    Secondly, during this same time period, 2,361 new condominiums began construction across the region. This represents a 52% annual decrease. So all in all, fewer people are buying new homes and fewer new homes are starting construction.

    What is obvious is that the market is slow right now. What is not obvious is what happens next. It’s unknowable. There’s risk. My gut is that the market will come back more slowly than many people are expecting, or perhaps hoping. There’s inventory that needs to work its way through the system first.

    But ultimately it will come back. Toronto is one of the greatest cities in the world and there remains a need for more homes. Which is why I continue to believe that, if you are in the market for a new one, now is arguably a wonderful time. You get to buy when most others aren’t.

  • The risk of not taking risk

    One simple definition of risk is that it’s the “possibility of loss or injury.” And that’s generally how most of us think about it — it’s a bad thing that needs to be managed, minimized, and sometimes avoided all together.

    While true, this recent memo by Howard Marks is a good reminder that risk is also indispensable. Or, put differently, there’s risk in not taking enough risk. This is true in business and finance, but it’s also true — as Howard argues — in chess, in sports, and in many other aspects of life:

    The paradox of risk-taking is inescapable. You have to take it to be successful in competitive, high-aspiration arenas. But taking it doesn’t mean you’ll be successful; that’s why they call it risk.

    By definition, it means that you will be wrong sometimes. Because if you couldn’t possibly be wrong, then it wouldn’t be a risk. It would be a known. And known things exist in our world in a very different way than uncertain things. Superior performance, as a gross generalization, demands uncertainty.

    So what’s the solution? Calculated risks:

    You shouldn’t expect to make money without bearing risk, but you shouldn’t expect to make money just for taking risk. You have to sacrifice certainty, but it has to be done skillfully and intelligently, and with emotion under control.

  • Walking back a transit decision

    I take the UP Express train into the office every day (here in Toronto). This is a rail service that we have spoken about many times over the years on this blog.

    It started as an airport link that was too expensive, but was then repriced so that more people would use it, and use it locally. It is now widely used by people like me. I don’t know the exact split, but in the mornings, it feels like majority commuters.

    Then on Monday of this week, the province announced that local service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes. Supposedly this was in order to improve service between downtown and Pearson airport.

    Commuters immediately reacted. In fact, while riding the train on Tuesday morning, there was quite literally a guy beside me on the phone trying to complain to his local city councillor and MPP. A petition was also started on Monday that, at the time of writing this post, had close to 6,000 supporters.

    And then — some 24 hours after the initial announcement — the Minister of Transportation announced that the province would be walking back this service change and that he had “directed Metrolinx to not proceed.” Boom.

    As a daily rider, this selfishly makes me happy. But more importantly, I think it, once again, shows how quickly voices can get amplified in today’s world and how important good regional express rail is to our city. Clearly we need more of this!

    Sadly, it probably also shows that some people have no idea how lines like these are actually getting used. I have to believe that if anyone had looked closely at ridership and the split between local/airport, that this decision wouldn’t have been made in the first place.

  • Grit and resilience in Detroit

    Earlier this month, the new Hudson’s tower in Detroit “topped out.” Meaning, they laid the last steel beam at the top of building. This, to me, is fantastic news. (Here’s the official project website in case you’re interested.)

    The tower, which was designed by New York-based SHoP Architects, is just over 685 feet tall. This makes it the second tallest building in the state of Michigan, after the Renaissance Center. And when it’s complete, it will house 1.5 million square feet of office, retail, food, residential, hotel, and event space.

    This week it was also announced that General Motors will be moving its headquarters and its 5,000 downtown employees to this new tower. I don’t know who will backfill their old space in the Renaissance Center, but that’s a topic for a different day. Today, I think we should be talking about the grit and resilience of Detroit.

    This is a city that reached a peak population of approximately 1.85 million people in 1950, had its population decline by more than 65%, and then became the largest city in the US to declare bankruptcy (2013). Now they’re building a big ass mixed-use tower in the center of downtown.

    👊

  • More people are cycling in Chicago

    One of the common criticisms of bike lanes is that most people don’t want to cycle in the winter. I mean, just look at Montreal’s winter cycling retention ratio.

    But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t invest in cycling infrastructure. Chicago, for instance, has been building out cycling infrastructure over the last few years (2020-2023) at an average rate of approximately 30 miles per year. This is double its rate from 2011-2019. And the results show.

    According to recent data from Replica and the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), Chicago saw the highest growth in cycling among the 10 largest cities in the US between fall 2019 and spring 2023.

    Biking overall was up 119%. Crosstown trips were up 180% (bike trips that spanned across four or more neighborhoods). Trips related to shopping were up 117%. And notably, zero-car households were up 207%.

    Remember, this is a city that basically has the same weather as Toronto. It gets cold in the winter. And sometimes it snows. But clearly if you build good cycling infrastructure, people will use it.

  • Amazon moves away from “Just Walk Out” technology at its grocery stores

    Back in 2018, Amazon opened its first cashier-less grocery store. The technology — which it later branded as “Just Walk Out” — was intended to allow customers to do exactly that. All you had to do was put items into your cart and walk out of the store. And then, through the magic of sophisticated computer vision, machine learning, and lots of sensors, you would be billed and sent a receipt.

    However, this month the company announced that it will be moving away from this technology, and instead focusing on its Dash Carts (more on this shortly). It turns out that the technology wasn’t nearly automated enough.

    Last year, The Information reported that “Just Walk Out” was relying on at least 1,000 off-site workers in India to constantly review video footage and figure out who had bought what. This is why it apparently took so long to receive a bill sometimes; humans far away were working to figure out if that was a persimmon in your hand, or a tomato.

    I’m not an expert on this space, but I’m guessing it is not (yet) feasible to do what Uniqlo and other retailers now do with their supply chains and checkouts. So this was the workaround. Whatever the case, Amazon has now said that it will be focusing on its Dash Carts, which are kind of like roaming checkout counters. They come with screens and scales for weighing things.

    Obviously the ideal solution is to not have to do or scan anything. But being able to avoid check-out lines still feels like meaningful progress. I just wonder if these smart carts will encourage or discourage spending. Because now everyone will have a live receipt in front of them. That might discourage spending unless you can offset it with rewards and/or other incentives.

  • Visual architecture guides by ÅVONTUURA

    “If I’m an advocate for anything, it’s to move. As far as you can, as much as you can. Across the ocean, or simply across the river. The extent to which you can walk in someone else’s shoes or at least eat their food, it’s a plus for everybody. Open your mind, get up off the couch, move.”

    –Anthony Bourdain

    My general recipe for travel is as follows: I want to see cool architecture, I want to eat good food, and I want to get a local sense for the place. Meaning, I’d ideally like to hang out with locals and learn from them. What’s it really like, here?

    Because of this, I’ve never been one to over schedule on trips. There will be things I absolutely want to see and do, but I always want to make sure that there’s time for the unknown.

    I think you want to walk into places that you don’t have on your list, sit at the bar, and have a conversation with the person behind it. You will learn things, and maybe it’ll set you on a travel journey that you couldn’t have possibly planned back home.

    That said, guides are still helpful for things like architecture and food. But I have never found general purpose guides — like the ones from Frommer’s — to be of any use. They have too much information that isn’t curated.

    When I was in my early 20s, I used to use the Wallpaper* City Guides. They were small. I would mark them up as I went. And they gave me the list of must-see architecture. More recently, I’ve been relying on Monocle’s Travel Guides. They’re great too.

    But I am now also a fan of Toronto-based ÅVONTUURA and the architecture guides that they produce. They are simple and beautiful pamphlets that give you a map of each city; a breakdown of contemporary, modern, and historic architecture; a recommended route through the city; and a full list of the important buildings, including their architects.

    The founder of Avontuura, Karl van Es, was kind enough to send me their entire set, which as of this month includes new guides for Amsterdam, Berlin, Singapore, and Toronto. Thank you, Karl.

    I’m now looking forward to trying one of these out on a future trip. I’m going to use it to decide what architecture I want to visit and, for the rest, I’ll just do what I normally like to do — wing it.

    P.S. It took me multiple attempts of tossing these guides onto my kitchen counter in order to arrive at the above photo. I hope you like it.

  • Housing follows money

    One argument that you might be able to make is that home prices follow urban density. New York City, for example, is dense. And homes in New York City tend to be more expensive than those in, oh I don’t know, rural Canada. So with this, you might conclude that development and density are bad — it makes housing more expensive. But then there’s places like San Jose, California. It’s not very dense, and yet it has some of if not the most expensive housing in the US.

    Well, it turns out that housing density and median housing values don’t actually exhibit a particularly strong correlation. A better and much stronger relationship can be found in what Kasey Klimes explains, here, in this excellent post, which is that home prices more accurately follow incomes. In other words, the more high paying jobs that exist in a market, the more likely that housing will be expensive.

    Here is what that looks like for US metros over 1 million people:

    The above chart compares median home value to aggregate income per unit of housing. And here, Kasey discovers an r-value of 0.9, which suggests that “over 81% of median home values in large metros can be attributed to aggregate income per unit of housing.” This explains why San Jose, and San Francisco, are such outliers. They have very high incomes for every unit of available housing, despite the former being not all that dense.

    Okay, so now that we know this, how do we make housing more affordable? One option is to just make people poorer. If you reduce incomes per unit of housing, then home prices will, almost certainly, go down. And this is why poorer cities tend to have more affordable housing. But this is obviously suboptimal. The better option is to keep people wealthy and simply increase the denominator in “aggregate income per unit of housing.”

    Meaning: build more housing!

    Chart: Kasey Klimes

  • Lisbon Hotel

    My friend David Wex recently opened up a new bar called Lisbon Hotel, and this evening I went to check it out with him. It’s not in Lisbon. And it’s not a hotel. But it is deliberately designed to feel like a hotel lobby bar, and it is a great place for drinks and snacks. I recommend both of the dishes pictured above — especially the cucumber and dill one.

    It’s also housed in the River City community, which his firm Urban Capital developed. And I think that’s something. Developers are often criticized when they put in boring (yet profitable) uses in the ground floors of their buildings. And this is not that (though hopefully it’s still profitable). This is him and his partners wanting to do something cool and help create a “place.”

    Who said new ideas need old buildings? Rhetorical question. It was Jane Jacobs who said this.

    For more on Lisbon Hotel, check out this profile in Toronto Life.