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.
IKEA did not invent the Allen key. Though today, it might feel that way. Canadian Peter L. Robertson first commercialized the square socket in 1908. And in 1909, American Willian G. Allen patented the hex varietal.
Due to an increased interest in interchangeability, hex nuts and keys would go on to become the dominant mode of fastening after World World II. And in English-speaking countries, the name Allen has largely stuck.
They’re cheap to make and you get built-in leverage with its longer arm.
IKEA first began using hex keys in the 1960s. Their philosophy was: “You do your part. We do our part. Together we save money.” Meaning, you assemble the things yourself. Here’s a set of assembly instructions from 1968:
Today, most of us probably take it for granted just how radical of an idea this was. IKEA had smartly figured out that flat packing furniture saved a ton of money for everyone. The challenge was that it then had to get everyone accustomed to putting together their own furniture.
But they more than did that. They arguably ushered in a revolution in furniture. And they did it on the backbone of a simple, yet revolutionary, device that, over a century later, most of us still call an Allen key.
I was speaking with our lawyer in Park City this week, and he commented to me that he wouldn’t be going into the office next week because Old Town would be too hectic with the Sundance Film Festival going on. His office is right on Main Street.
When small mountain towns host major international events, there are going to be spillover effects. This is true of Sundance in Park City (population ~8,500) and it is true of the World Economic Forum, which was hosted in Davos (population ~10,000) this past week.
Perhaps the most obvious impact is that people can rent out their homes for large sums of money. And so lots of people both do that and try to profit maximize while doing it. Here are some anecdotes from Davos (via NZZ):
Ten days before the WEF, there are still 25 listings on the Airbnb internet platform. The prices here range from 8,000 to 56,000 Swiss francs. The son of an apartment owner says that his family receives 12,000 francs a week for their three-room apartment, which is quite close to the convention center. However, he says he assumes that they could achieve significantly more. The family rents out the apartment through an intermediary.
Another interesting impact in Davos happens on the retail side (also via NZZ):
According to expert Robert Weinert, the average rent per square meter of retail space in Davos is 248 Swiss francs. A businessperson renting a storefront of 80 square meters must therefore pay almost 20,000 francs in rent per year. However, if that business vacates the store during the WEF, it can earn 60,000 francs – three times the annual rent for the facilities.
What this means is that some retail spaces remain vacant all year, just so that they can be available for when the WEF arrives and people need temporary commercial spaces. And why wouldn’t this be the case: 20,000 francs for the year or 60,000 francs for a week. If I’m the landlord, I’ll take the additional 40,000 francs and not think about the property for the rest of the year.
Of course, if you’re trying to create a vibrant community with things, like, occupied retail spaces, then this isn’t ideal.
There are a lot of headwinds facing Airbnb. Cities around the world seem to be systematically making it more difficult to be a host. New York City, as many of you know, recently made it so that you need to be physically present while the dwelling is being rented. That is pretty limiting. Similar things are happening in non-urban markets too. North of Toronto in Muskoka, there’s a draft by-law that will, among other things, limit short-term rentals to 50% of the total number of days within certain time periods. That eliminates the possibility of doing this as a business. So in many ways, it’s easy to be pessimistic about the future of Airbnb.
But at the same time, if you step back and look at the bigger picture, there are over 7 million active listings on Airbnb. This effectively makes it the largest hospitality brand in the world. There are more accommodations on Airbnb than with Marriott, Hilton, Intercontinental, Wyndham, and Hyatt combined. (The below chart is from Scott Galloway.) It’s also important to point out that while Airbnb doesn’t own any of its own supply, the same is true of most hotel brands. They are, brands. The difference is that Airbnb created a more scalable platform and a more decentralized approach to aggregating supply.
The numbers also don’t suggest that things are slowing down for Airbnb. (Here’s their Q3 2023 shareholder letter.) Active listings on the platform grew 19% YoY in Q3 2023 (or by almost 1 million listings). Revenue is up. Free cash flow is up. And in Q3 of last year, the company repurchased $500 million of stock, bringing their one year total to somewhere around $3 billion. So despite all of the efforts to curb short-term rentals within our cities, the company, at least for now, seems to be holding up just fine. And if they can successfully diversify beyond their core business, there could even be reason to be bullish on the world’s largest hospitality brand.
Let’s resume looking at sidewalks and public spaces.
If you look in the City of Toronto’s Official Plan for the stretch of Dundas Street West that runs between Dupont Street and Bloor Street West, you’ll find a map that looks like this:
Red signifies “Mixed Use.” And so if you were to just look at this map, you might naturally assume that, in the real world, this is a continuous main street that connects The Junction neighborhood down to Bloor. But that’s not actually the case. Instead, it looks like this:
Because of the rail corridor on the east side, it is a single-sided street. And generally speaking, these don’t make for the best retail streets. But it also has narrow sidewalks and a compromised public realm. If you go back to the map I shared yesterday, you get this:
I don’t think 30cm is entirely accurate here, but that’s beside the point. What matters is that this is just one of many examples in the city of a discontinuous public realm. (Here’s another, undignified example, from Parkside Drive.)
Over the years, there have been a number of design concepts proposed. Below is one by Brown + Storey Architects that was done I don’t know how many years ago. Their proposal widened the sidewalks along this stretch, and added bike lanes. They also proposed a roundabout at the intersection of Dundas, Dupont, and Annette, which is another matter that needs addressing.
But none of this has been implemented and I don’t know of any plans to do it. When we were going through the rezoning process for Junction House, we were made aware of some transportation studies that had been done for the above intersection. But that’s about it. There wasn’t an actual ETA.
However, now that my commute consists of walking up and down this part of Dundas, I’ve been thinking more about how it could be improved.
I think there’s no question that the sidewalks need to be widened. It would also be helpful if there were crosswalks to facilitate getting off the south end of this exotic island:
But equally important, I think that something should be done about the single-sided nature of the street. Given that there’s limited width, my mind immediately goes to shipping containers, or something similar, to start activating the east side of the street.
This has already been done further south on Dundas (east of Bathurst):
And it could work here too. Already there’s a Blondie’s Pizza anchoring the south end of this stretch (really fantastic pizza, by the way):
But I would love to hear your ideas, as I’m currently in the market. I also don’t think that you necessarily need to be from Toronto in order to comment. Great streets are great streets. So if it were up to you, what would you change, if anything, about this part of Dundas Street West? Let me know in the comment section below.
Dave LeBlanc recently published an article in the Globe and Mail called, “How wide is your sidewalk?” And in it, he links to this sidewalk map of Toronto (pictured above), which uses open data from the city to plot sidewalk widths.
It was originally intended as a map of where social distancing is possible (oh, how far we’ve come), but today it serves as a really interesting way of looking at the city. What it makes clear to me is that we could use a lot more sidewalk, and that too many areas of the city have a discontinuous public realm.
Sometimes there’s very little that can be done until an adjacent property gets redeveloped. And when this does happen, the city will demand pedestrian widenings. But in other cases, there are solutions that could be implemented today, without private participation.
So I sure hope that someone is looking at a map like this and trying to come up with holistic solutions for making Toronto a more walkable and more pedestrian-friendly city.
Note: Sometimes a narrow sidewalk does not necessarily equal an inhospitable street. I mean, look at this example.
It covers two important life questions: (1) How do you define success? (2) Are your actions aligned with that definition? And included in the post is the author’s “ideal end state”, which is a list that includes things like “control 80% of my schedule”, “be top 0.1% fit for my age group”, and “thriving marriage with regular 1-on-1 time.”
Some of his list has checkmarks, and some of it — things like “small, beautifully designed home with an epic view” — is still a work in progress.
After I got the message, I immediately responded with: “This is great. I’m going to do this for myself.” I then sent it to my family.
Now, in some ways, I’m already doing this. I like lists and I have a lot of them. Some of them are “disciplines” that tell me to do things like write every day (that’s what this blog is), lift weights, and continuously practice my French. And some of them deal with aspirational goals like, build a creative retreat in the mountains because you love snowboarding.
But I think there’s a lot of room for me to be even more intentional, and aspirational, about what success means to me. And so that’s what I plan to do. Maybe some of you will want to do the same after reading this post.
Generally the way the former works is that you have to have been living continuously in the home since July 1, 1971, and the building itself needs to have been constructed before 1947. If this is the case, then in theory, you should have seen relatively minor rent increases over the years.
This was the case for the late real estate agent, Alice Mason, who died at the beginning of this year at the age of 100:
She never left the rent-stabilized [controlled?] apartment where she held her storied dinners, in a century-old building on East 72nd Street. (In Manhattan real estate parlance, it was a classic eight, a gracious prewar layout that included three bedrooms and two maid’s rooms.) In 2011, the developer Harry Macklowe bought the building for a reported $70 million and began to turn the units into condos, buying out the tenants to do so.But Ms. Mason refused to give up her apartment. When she moved there in 1962, the rent was $400 a month. At her death, it was $2,476. The apartment below her, in the same line, was recently on the market for just under $10 million.
Green, Penelope. “Alice Mason, Real Estate Fixer and Hostess to the Elite, Dies at 100.” The New York Times, 13 Jan. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/style/alice-mason-dead.html.
For better or for worse, this is an obviously awesome deal, and reason enough to never move and have family members move in with you before you die so that you can try and pass down this asset for generations to come.
I recently got a Samsung Frame TV to use as an NFT display at home. I had been looking for one for a while and I finally pulled the trigger last week. The way the Frame works is that it’s a TV when it’s on, and it’s an art display when it’s off. But I really don’t care about the TV part. I just wanted a good looking art display.
There are a lots of purpose-built NFT displays on the market right now, including Tokenframe, Blackdove, Muse, and others. And I was very close to getting a Muse Frame.
But ultimately I decided on the Samsung Frame because it was (1) cheaper for its size (50″), (2) it looks cool, and (3) I was fine with just a simple high-quality display. I think there will be lots more software and dongles created in the future for people who want to showcase their NFTs on whatever they happen to have at home.
However, if you’re a crypto and NFT purist, this maybe isn’t the display for you — at least right now. Out of the box, it doesn’t connect with any crypto wallets. And so you’re not going to automatically see the provenance of each art piece (more on this below). Instead, the default method is to just upload JPEGs to the TV from Samsung’s SmartThings app (insert right-click-save-as jokes here).
Overall, I’m really happy with the display. Here are my initial thoughts:
I have it set to randomly rotate through my art every 3 minutes. There’s also a motion detection feature that works reasonably well. If it doesn’t detect any motion, the display will go completely to sleep. But for some reason, it occasionally gets possessed and the TV will randomly turn on. Last week it kept turning on old Baywatch episodes. Possibly user error.
Samsung’s SmartThings app is bad. It’s buggy and a pain to use. For example, even though I’ve given it complete access to my phone’s photos, they never seem to show up. I have to limit access and then go and select the ones I want to use in my gallery.
I have found that I prefer when the art is full bleed versus within the Frame’s skeuomorphic picture mat. This is a new form of art and so I like the idea of breaking past traditions. But unless your images are 16×9 and a high enough resolution (I have generally found > 3000px wide to work), then you’re going to get prompted to insert and select a mat design.
I have solved this problem by manually cropping and editing the individual pieces. Some NFT collections, such as CyberBrokers, also give you vector files which allows you to play around as you see fit. Again, if you’re an NFT and/or art purist, you’re probably not going to like this. But I think of it as curating the pieces.
Most of my art is on Ethereum, Solana, and Tezos. Being able to upload whatever I want is helpful, because not all NFT displays support all of the chains. The Muse Frame, for instance, only supports Ethereum and Polygon right now.
PNG files and video files aren’t supported natively. This is a significant drawback and so eventually I know I’m going to have to change up the software that powers this display. And there are options. Bright Moments offers display software for holders of its NFTs. Fred Wilson’s venture firm USV created this setup. And I’m sure there are countless others. These can solve the provenance issue mentioned above by pulling directly from the various blockchains.
In the end, I knew what I was getting into with the Frame. I knew it wasn’t a purpose-built NFT display and I was fine with that. It’s still early days in this space. But it sure is nice to finally see my NFT art in large format.
I am not a lawyer. Nothing I write on this blog should be construed as legal advice. In fact, it is highly questionable whether anything I write here should be construed as any sort of advice. Still, Trump’s fraud trial is an interesting one for us to discuss. The case, as I crudely understand it, accuses him of “inflating his net worth to dupe banks” and “issuing false financial statements every year between 2011 and 2021.” And possibly some other things, too.
Now there are some people who are saying that there’s nothing actually wrong with the way Trump conducts his real estate practice. Kevin O’Leary, for instance, was just on CNN saying, “every real estate developer everywhere does this.” His position was that if you’re going to fault Trump, then you need to go after every developer out there. Here’s the video interview where he says this:
Let’s break this down. Kevin is right in that people who own real estate ordinarily want it to be worth as much as possible. This is true for individual homeowners and it’s true for large real estate companies. And there are various reasons for this. One reason is that it maximizes your debt proceeds. For example, if you buy a building for $100 and the banks are willing to give you a loan based on a LTV (loan-to-value) of 70%, then you will get $70 in debt proceeds and you will need to put in $30 of your own cash equity.
However, if you buy a building for $100 and it ends up being worth ~$143, then this same 70% LTV will result in $100 of debt proceeds. This means that you won’t need to put in any of your own cash and that, for all intents and purposes, you just got a building for “free.” By most metrics, this would be considered a good real estate deal. (Of course, you could also buy a building for $100 and have it be worth only $50. And this would be much less fun than getting free real estate.)
One important question, though, is how does the building end up “being worth $143?” Well, one scenario could be that you just bought really well. It was an off-market transaction (i.e. it wasn’t formally listed), the seller was highly motivated, and so you negotiated a below-market purchase price. You then went out and hired a reputable third-party appraiser who did a bunch of rigorous research and issued you a report that said, “your building is worth $143.” And this would be perfectly fine.
But one can also imagine ways in which someone could lie and do nefarious things to try and convince people that their building is worth $143, even if it clearly isn’t. Now, at the end of the day, I don’t know the facts of this case. So I can’t comment directly. But I did want to use this as an opportunity to add some nuance to Kevin’s claim that “every real estate developer everywhere does this.” Ultimately, that depends on what “this” is. Are we talking about doing customary things to maximize value creation? Or are we talking about fraud?
In fact, spending on leisure travel and recreation has outpaced the overall growth in consumer spending over the last decade, and inflation-adjusted spending on leisure activities as a share of overall consumer spending grew from 9.5% in 2013 to nearly 13% by 2022. This means that the travel and tourism industry is getting a growing share of a growing pie, which bodes well for the long-term future of those hotels and destinations that cater primarily to leisure travelers.
And so are blended trips (trips that combine business and leisure). Though the way people are going about it has evolved:
What used to involve adding a day or two on the weekend to a weekday business trip has shifted to the mixing of business and pleasure throughout the week. With a greater percentage of the workforce in the U.S, Canada and the U.K. only going into the office 2-3 days per week, workers from these countries are free to blend their travel for up to a week. And with as much as a quarter of professionals in the U.S. now working remotely, a whole new class of nomadic travelers has emerged who are able to travel anywhere, anytime—as long as their accommodations have adequate high-speed internet and appropriate workspaces.
But while increased regulation and enforcement of the sector will wipe out the businesses of many “professional” hosts and investors, it’s also creating new opportunities for cities and developers to create new neighborhood-oriented hotels that satiate travelers’ desire for local experiences while also being additive to the quality of life of local residents.
It might be the case that these two things are inversely correlated. More people are traveling for fun and for work, and so now cities are trying to manage that demand; more travel leads to more regulation. Whatever the case, I do agree that this is an important consumption trend.
My working theory is this: if money wasn’t an object, a lot of people would love to have homes all around the world and live in multiple places. I certainly would. And the list of places is already in my phone. But since this isn’t practical for most, we have Airbnbs, neighborhood-oriented hotels, Soho House global memberships, and the ability to buy fractions of second homes.
These solutions all respond, at least partially, to our desires for new experiences and for a deeper attachment to places. But now that tech is expanding the reach of cities, these desires are becoming further untethered. And so my view is that there’s going to be a lot of opportunity in the world of “making people feel like they’re global citizens.”
