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

  • Rescue reflectors vs. avalanche beacons

    Last week, I decided to order a RECCO rescue reflector for my snowboard helmet (the red strip pictured above). My new jacket — a wonderful Christmas gift — doesn’t have one built in, so I decided it couldn’t hurt to just stick one on. They cost about $50.

    However, a passive RECCO reflector is not an avalanche beacon. These reflectors only work if a rescue crew has active RECCO detectors on hand. I don’t know what percentage of resorts have them, but if you’ve ever been cat or heli-skiing, or if you do backcountry skiing, you’ll know that what you need is a beacon.

    Avalanche beacons generally have two modes: a sending mode and a receiving mode. When you’re riding, you want it in sending mode, meaning you’re automatically transmitting your location. No further action is needed.

    If something bad were to happen, and someone gets lost, everyone in the group will then switch their beacon to receiving mode. And this is how you go about finding someone if they’ve been caught in something like an avalanche.

    I don’t know that many people who do this while skiing inbounds, but today’s tragedy at Palisades Tahoe is a reminder that sometimes bad things can happen even within managed resort areas. My heart is heavy for the skier who died today.

  • Toward positive ZOPAs

    This example, by Matt Levine, is a funny way to understand how many negotiations work:

    In negotiations, it is often helpful to have someone else, some “absent principal,” to blame for your position. You go to a car dealership, the salesperson says “this car costs $25,000,” you say “I want to pay $21,000,” she says “I like you, I want you in this car, but my boss won’t let me go lower than $24,000,” you say “$22,000,” she says “I really want this to work out, let me check with my boss,” she goes into the break room and watches TikToks on her phone for five minutes, she comes back and says “my boss is really mad at me but I talked him down to $23,500.”

    The boss is a crutch, an excuse. The salesperson is adversarial to you — she wants to charge more, you want to pay less — but wants you to feel like she’s on your side, so you trust her and agree to her proposals.

    Now, Matt ultimately goes on to talk about how in some situations, such as in the financial industry, this could be considered criminal behavior. But that’s a more nuanced topic for his column, and not for this blog. Here, we’re just going to use it as a lead-in to say that negotiating is kind of important for real estate.

    In fact, when I was in grad school, my mentors used to always say to me, “everyone should take a negotiating class.” And so I went and did that. It was a lot of fun. I remember us being given “positions”, and then we’d have to go out and see what we could negotiate.

    One particular concept that I often find myself coming back to is something referred to as the “ZOPA.” The Russians in my class were quick to point out that this sounds like the word ass in their language, but in the world of negotiating it stands for “Zone of Possible Agreement.”

    What it describes is whether there’s an overlap between what both parties are willing to accept. For example, if a buyer is willing to pay as much as $100 for a particular piece of real estate, and the seller is willing to go as low as $80, then there is a positive ZOPA of $20.

    This means that a deal should theoretically happen. However, interestingly enough, I discovered in my classroom simulations that negotiations can still arrive at an impasse, even with a positive ZOPA. Some people want to do deals, and some people like to extract everything they can from a negotiation.

    Of course, if you have a negative ZOPA (i.e. no overlap in what the parties are willing to accept), then it’s obviously pretty hard, if not largely impossible, to come to a deal. And since 2022, you could say that the real estate industry has been characterized by a greater number of negative ZOPA scenarios.

    But if my predictions for this year are correct, then 2024 will be the year where we start to see some more positive ones.

  • Building a home on a constrained site

    I’m so predictable. This is the kind of house that tends to grab my attention: modern design, relatively small footprint (~7.8m x 12.3m), narrow street (~4m), and panoramic views (of Seoul). But what does it take to actually build a house like this in an urban fabric as dense as Seoul’s?

    If you read TIUM Architect’s description (using Google Translate for those of us who don’t speak Korean), you’ll see that the house was built out of concrete and steel, but that concrete trucks couldn’t stage on the narrow and dead-end street.

    So what they ended up having to do was build a 100-meter concrete conveying pipe (~328 feet) and staging somewhere else. It was such a pain in the ass that they only wanted to do this for the foundations. The rest of the house was built out of steel. (I think because of the clear spans that they wanted.)

    Sometimes small infill projects aren’t as simple as they may seem. In this case, the lot size is 92 m2. The building footprint is 51.53 m2 (56% lot coverage). And the total floor area is 136.52 m2.

    Photo: Lee Hanul via ArchDaily

  • More retailers are buying real estate in New York

    Last week we spoke about how many businesses don’t want to own their own real estate, but that some do. We then spoke about Prada’s recent acquisition of 720 and 724 Fifth Avenue for $835 million. However, they’re not the only ones. According to New York’s The Real Deal (thank you John Bell for the article), last year saw the following transactions:

    • Swiss fashion house Akris bought a property from SL Green for $40.6 million
    • Japanese coffee retailer Geshary bought a property on Fifth Avenue from the Riese Organization for $38 million
    • And Dyson bought a building in Soho for $60 million

    Now, some, or a lot of this, is strategic. New York is New York, and global brands need to be there. Another part of this is that there was less competition last year. Fewer real estate companies wanted to buy retail and office buildings, and so end users seem to have stepped in at what they presumably saw as favourable prices.

    But it’s also not totally foreign for retailers to want to own their own real estate. Perhaps the most famous example is McDonald’s, which owns its own real estate and then leases it out to franchisees. Though as I alluded to last week, it’s important to know what business you’re ultimately in. And McDonald’s knows it’s in the real estate business.

  • Live from the co-working space at Junction House

    Yesterday’s post was written in the co-working (/lobby) area of Junction House. I wrote about this space nearly a year ago when it was under construction, but now it’s complete and people like me are using it:

    I spent a few hours working in the space yesterday, and it was amazing to see residents and guests coming and going. Some people were waiting to meet someone. Some people were just playing on their phones. And others, like me, were jumping on and off calls and writing blog posts. Later in the evening, it transitioned to guests carrying bottles of wine and flowers.

    This was always the intent of this “amenity.” We wanted to create a social space for residents and guests, replicating a bit of the feeling that you might get in a hotel lobby bar. But ultimately, this is the kind of space that will almost certainly evolve over time, depending on how residents choose to use it. It’s not rigidly defined; it’s more of a flex space.

    It’s also worth mentioning that this space was designed well before COVID. A lot of people have asked us if this was in response to that, hoping to identify tangible ways in which design has responded to the pandemic. But honestly, we didn’t change anything. Gathering spaces were important before, and they remain important today.

    I guess in many ways this is a space that sits somewhere in between a “first place” and a “third place.” It’s almost a first place in that it’s in a building that people call home. But it’s also a more public social environment that isn’t technically home or work. So I’m really looking forward to seeing how it settles in and evolves over time.

    I’ll report back.

  • Real estate commissions are probably going to come down

    Real estate commissions on homes in the US are typically between 5-6%. And it is usually split between the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent (or it goes all to one agent in the case of dual-ended deals). It is also customary for this commission to be paid entirely by the seller (through the proceeds of their sale), though you could argue that buyers end up paying for it indirectly. All of this is generally true in Canada as well.

    This is a good set up:

    • Sellers don’t pay until they sell and have fresh cash
    • Money being deducted from proceeds (the “take rate”) is a lot less noticeable and has a lot less friction than cash you just have to pay out
    • Buyers kind of don’t pay

    This last point is one of the most important features of how real estate commissions work. Because you have one side of the transaction that feels as if they’re mostly not paying, it generally helps to perpetuate the status quo. If both sides had to directly fork out cash, you’d likely have a lot more people saying, “hey, why don’t we consummate this transaction over here, on the side, and not pay these fees.”

    But it turns out that the US Department of Justice isn’t happy about some of these policies and practices. More specifically, when the National Association of Realtors does things like this:

    • Prohibiting multiple listing services (“MLSs”) from disclosing to prospective buyers the amount of commission that the buyer broker will earn if the buyer purchases a home listed on the MLS (“NAR’s Commission Concealment Rules”);
    • Allowing buyer brokers to mislead buyers into thinking that buyer broker services are free (“NAR’s Free-Service Rule”);
    • Enabling buyer brokers to filter MLS listings based on the level of buyer broker commissions offered and to exclude homes with lower commissions from consideration by potential home buyers (“NAR’s Commission-Filter Rules and Practices”); and
    • Limiting access to lockboxes that provide licensed brokers physical access to a home that is for sale to only those real estate brokers who are members of a NAR-affiliated MLS (“NAR’s Lockbox Policy”).

    In fact, these practices were found to be anti-competitive; they were arguably keeping commissions artificially high. So much so that a federal court recently awarded $1.8 billion in damages. It was also decided that no rule or practice should exist that:

    • Prohibits, discourages, or recommends against an MLS or MLS Participant publishing or displaying to consumers any MLS database field specifying the compensation offered to other MLS Participants;
    • Permits or requires MLS Participants, including buyer brokers, to represent or suggest that their services are free or available to a client at not cost to the client;
    • Permits or enables MLS Participants to filter, suppress, hide, or not display or distribute MLS listings based on the level of compensation offered to the buyer broker or the name of the brokerage or agent; or
    • Prohibits, discourages or recommends against the eligibility of any licensed real estate agent or broker, from accessing, with seller approval, the lockboxes of those properties listed on an MLS.

    Some believe that this ruling — which will create more competition — could reduce the $100 billion or so of commissions paid each year (in the US) by as much as 30%. This is possible. I have no idea how this estimate was calculated. But it does make intuitive sense that commissions should come down. This ruling gets at the heart of what sustains the industry: one side of the marketplace needs to feel that they’re, mostly, not really, paying.

  • Turquoise for autonomy

    One of the realities that we will have to face in, oh I don’t know, 5 or so years, is that there will be a mixture of different cars on the road. Some will operate with drivers. And some will operate with no drivers. Assuming that the cars with no drivers do well at their job, I would imagine that this will become the default. But in the interim, it’ll probably be useful to know which is which. And that’s why Mercedes-Benz (and probably others) has been working to establish a new internationally-accepted signal for computer-driven cars.

    The decision so far: turquoise lights.

    The company has just received permits from the states of California and Nevada for its Drive Pilot system, and as part of this, turquoise lights were earmarked for this exact purpose. Supposedly turquoise was chosen because it’s distinct and because there’s nothing else on the road that uses it. But I think the real reason is that it looks cool and kind of cyberpunk. So I hope this does become the standard way that we all visualize our shift toward autonomy. I can already imagine the long-exposure photography that will follow of our roads.

    Images: Mercedes Benz via The Drive

  • Prada just bought a lot of real estate in New York

    We have spoken before about how hotel brands don’t typically own their real estate. But the same is also true of many other businesses. And one common reason for this is that it ties up a lot capital that could be otherwise deployed in the core business. If, for example, you’re in the business of producing exclusive handbags, it usually makes sense to spend your excess cash on making better handbags. And if you find that you’re actually making more money on real estate, then it could be a sign that you’re in the wrong business.

    There are, however, instances where owning your own real estate may make the most sense. Maybe you have an irreplaceable location that you want to secure for the long term. And so there’s real strategic value. Or maybe you keep having annoying legal fights with your landlord and you just want to get back to focusing on luxury handbags. There are other motivating factors to consider here, but these two seem to be behind Prada’s recent acquisition of 724 Fifth Avenue in New York.

    Prada has had a flagship 5-storey retail store at this location since 1997 (and most recently was paying US$22 million in rent). In December, they announced that they had acquired the entire 12-storey building for US$425 million. (That works out to be about $5,395 psf on the gross building area!) And then shortly after, they announced that they had acquired next door — a hard corner — for another US$410 million (total US$835 million).

    All of this makes the deal one of the largest in New York last year. But was it a good deal? I would need some more information to answer from a quantitative real estate perspective. But if I’m Prada, I know that I need to be on Fifth Avenue for the foreseeable future. And now I get access to a hard corner and I no longer have to deal with my landlord. These are clearly strategic things. Last year was also a pretty good time to be buying retail/office buildings with all cash, which is what Prada did.

  • Thinking about the things we’re used to

    This is a powerful perspective:

    We evolved to be wary of change. Our attention is limited, new things can be a threat and the status quo feels comfortable.

    As a result, we spend a lot of time and energy being afraid (and arguing about) the upcoming changes in our lives, but almost no time at all thinking about the things we’re used to.

    As an example of this tension, check out this “exit interview” with Toronto’s former chief city planner, Gregg Lintern. The underlying theme is change and why it’s desperately needed.

    But of course, that’s not easy.

    The interviewer, Victoria Gibson, mentions this survey stat: nearly half (47%) of all Torontonians think the city is building too little housing, and yet only about a quarter (27%) think their area could handle more.

    We need this, but not here. Probably because we’re used to the way things are.

    But if you read the interview, you’ll see that the answer, or at least one answer, is to make the conversation personal, and ultimately think critically about, you know, the things we’re used to.

    Change starts with not giving the benefit of the doubt to the status quo.

  • Nearly 1 out of every 10 cars sold is now electric

    I’ve said this before, but the car I currently have will certainly be the last internal combustion engine vehicle that I own. I truthfully even felt a bit weird buying it 6 years ago, but at the time, there weren’t that many options other than a Tesla. And I didn’t want a Tesla.

    Today, there are lots of EV options, and the numbers are starting to show that. When the final figures come in, it is estimated that the US will have sold 15.5 million new cars last year. And of these, about 1.44 million units are expected to have been electric.

    This means that we are just under 1 out of every 10 new cars sold in the US. The trend line is also working in the right direction. 1.44 million new EV units is roughly the total number of EVs sold between 2016 and 2021 in the US. 

    So things are accelerating. And presumably there are other people like me waiting on the sidelines. I am deliberately roughed in for an EV charging station in my new parking spot and, if/when it comes time to purchase a new car, that’s exactly what will get installed.

    (I added “if” because, depending on how mobility evolves over the next 5-10 years, there’s a chance I may no longer want to own a car.)