Tag: athiscity

• Why multi-family developers are shifting their customer focus

  One aspect of the Toronto housing market that I’ve been paying close attention to is the adoption of multi-family dwellings by both long-term end-users and families. 

  I’ve written about this before (here and here, over a year ago) and have argued that here in Toronto we are at an inflection point. Multi-family dwellings – both rental and condo – are evolving to now target these new customer segments. Whereas previously, the new construction multi-family housing market was heavily geared towards investors and first-buyers. And often it was simply a stepping stone towards a single family home.

  Now, every city and real estate market is different. And I have heard many people in U.S. cities say that Millennials are simply deferring what we saw with previous generations. At the end of the day they (or we, I’m a Millennial) are going to move to the suburbs and buy that car. The current trends we are seeing around city living and reduced driving are just that – short-term current trends.

  But I think it’s worth reiterating: I do not believe that the status quo is what’s happening right now in Toronto. And I’m sure it’s also happening elsewhere. Time and time again I speak to developers in this city who are starting to shift at least some, and in some cases all, of their focus towards end-users, families, and larger units – particularly for new mid-rise product in the “neighborhoods.”

  And if you think about it, this makes perfect sense. 

  The average price of a detached single family house in Toronto is well north of a million dollars. So when a developer brings to market a 1,200 sf family sized apartment at $600 psf ($720,000) or even at $700 psf ($840,000), that home now becomes a relatively “affordable” option in many desirable areas of the city. Particularly if you value location amenities and your time (i.e. shorter commutes) over raw quantity of space. I know I certainly do.

  I know this isn’t going to appeal to everyone. But there is a big market here. Get ready.

  What are you seeing in your city? Let us know in the comment section below.

  2015.12.15

• [Video] The Skyline Forum: Architect or Developer?

  I recently had a discussion with Ben Stevens about architecture and real estate development for his video blog, The Skyline Forum. I’ve posted about his blog before because I think it’s a great idea and a great forum for the industry. I sure hope he keeps it up.

  Here’s what we talked about in Ben’s words:

  “In Episode 6, I caught up with Brandon Donnelly of the very popular blog Architect This City. Brandon has degrees in both architecture and real estate development and as such has a unique perspective on the two disciplines. In this episode, I was interested to hear about the rationale behind his decision to pursue development over architecture, his definition of “real estate developer,” and his suggestions for pursuing the kind of work in real estate development which he does (currently in Toronto). It was a great conversation and confirmed for me a lot of things I’d learned through reading his fantastic blog.”

  And here’s the video discussion:

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-o_gT9czfM&w=560&h=315]

  A big thanks to Ben for inviting me to participate – he has chatted with some big names. As a published author himself, I also appreciated him encouraging me to write a book. I’ve been thinking about doing that. Oh, and a big thanks to my mom for providing the Christmas poinsettia that ended up being prominently featured in the background 😉

  I haven’t watched the full video yet, but one thing is clear: I’m quite the hand talker.

  2015.12.14

• The value of absurdity for innovation (and a story about tacos)

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  “Great ideas alter the power balance in relationships. That’s why great ideas are initially resisted.” –Hugh Macleod

  I have been following the work and writing of designer Tobias van Scheider for quite some time now. If you don’t subscribe to his newsletter and you end up liking this post, you should consider signing up.

  Recently I stumbled upon something he published back in October called “Ignore Everybody”, where he argues that when you’re exploring something new – that could potentially fail – one of the best things you can do is ignore everybody. 

  And that’s because:

  “We have to understand that ideas are by nature very fragile. They’re like little naked babies, unable to protect themselves. If we really believe in a new idea, we have to protect her with great effort. This is difficult, because oftentimes the greatest ideas get killed by the people around us. Executing on a great idea is by nature a lonely path. If everyone would agree with you, the idea is probably not that great anyway.”

  I am incredibly interested in how new things get started and how new ideas thrive. Fostering innovation has become a critical component of city building in today’s world. But sometimes I feel as if we’re thinking too top-down, as opposed to bottom-up. 

  As Tobias rightly points out in his article, lots of great ideas started as stupid little projects. Who would have thought that a teen sexting app with disappearing messages (Snapchat) would become a company worth many billions of dollars?

  It’s for this same reason that Sam Altman of Y Combinator recently wrote that sometimes its better to call your new company a project, rather than a business. When you call it a business you impose all kinds of biases onto it in terms of viable business models, and so on. But when you keep it a “project”, it becomes more acceptable to be experimental.

  As an example of all this, I was fascinated to learn this past weekend about a Toronto-based ad agency called OneMethod. Because as part of their agency they have a division called the MethLab, where the goal is to simply experiment with “absurd ideas.”

  One of those absurd ideas was a social media campaign slash pop-up taco restaurant – remember, they are an ad agency not restauranteurs. It was so grassroots that they ended up having to sell original art work that happened to come with a “free” taco in order to get around all the legal requirements for serving food. Brilliant.

  The idea was so well received that it has grown into a fully fledged restaurant called La Carnita, which today operates across 3 permanent locations and happens to be one of the most popular taco restaurants in Toronto.

  But let me ask you this, if they had instead gone out to investors – as an ad agency wanting to get into the taco business – would they have been able to raise the money for their first physical restaurant? I can imagine this being a lot more difficult.

  On a larger scale, this is exactly what Google is doing with Alphabet. The company was reorganized and rebranded so that they could continue to work on absurd ideas outside of the Google cash cow. If the idea/project takes off, then it becomes a fully fledged company. If it doesn’t, then it gets shut down and something else is tried.

  This is what people and companies are doing today to stay relevant in the innovation race. 

  But in some ways it feels like a battle to allow the absurd to survive. That’s why the best approach might be to just ignore everybody. There’s value in the absurd but maybe you’re the only one who sees it right now.

  2015.12.13

• The Entrepreneurs, Barcelona

  Last week Monocle published their latest edition of “The Entrepreneurs” series. In this episode they look at Barcelona and a handful of entrepreneurs that are helping to grow the city. The video is only about 7 minutes long.

  I enjoy Monocle’s short films and I’ve always been impressed by Barcelona as a city. So here’s the video:

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1wLBjlecac?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  2015.12.13

• K-House

  

  My friend Nicolas Koff – who I went to architecture school with, twice – recently completed a house near Hamilton, Ontario. I think it’s stunning and so I wanted to share it with you all today. It was also featured in Dezeen Magazine this week. That’s where the photos are from.

  

  Beyond its good looks though, it’s also a great example of sustainable design. The walls were prefabricated and are 40cm thick in order to reduce energy consumption. There are also solar panels on the roof to offset some of the electrical loads. And this is just some of the sustainability strategies employed.

  Click here to see the rest of the photos at Dezeen. I hope you like it as much as I do.

  2015.12.11

• The independent worker

  There’s a lot of discussion about what the “online gig economy” will mean for traditional forms of employment. And seeing how we’re on the topic of Uber right now, I thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

  Should Uber drivers, to use one example, be classified as independent contractors or should they be classified as traditional employees? There are arguments for both sides.

  Seth Harris and Alan Krueger recently published a discussion paper where they argue for a solution somewhere in between the two. They call it “the independent worker.”

  Here’s a snippet that illustrates the tension that currently exists for people working in this new emerging grey area:

  “Independent workers typically work with intermediaries who match workers to customers. The independent worker and the intermediary have some elements of the arms-length independent business relationships that characterize “independent contractor” status, and some elements of a traditional employee-employer relationship. On the one hand, independent workers have the ability to choose when to work, and whether to work at all. They may work with multiple intermediaries simultaneously, or conduct personal tasks while they are working with an intermediary. It is thus impossible in many circumstances to attribute independent workers’ work hours to any employer. In this critical respect, independent workers are similar to independent businesses. On the other hand, the intermediary retains some control over the way independent workers perform their work, such as by setting their fees or fee caps, and they may “fire” workers by prohibiting them from using their service. In these respects, independent workers are similar to traditional employees.”

  I haven’t read the full paper, but I like the idea of remaining adaptable in the face of innovation.

  2015.12.11

• Protect me from what I want

  

  The title of this post is a line from one of the works of Jenny Holzer. It feels appropriate right now.

  On Wednesday, Toronto saw a large scale anti-Uber protest involving as many as 2,000 taxis. It involved a bunch of taxis driving real slow around downtown, some altercations, and lots of people who want to see Uber completely shut down.

  This, of course, isn’t a new thing for cities. 

  Many cities around the world have seen similar kinds of protests. But many of you will probably also agree that this is not the most effective response from the taxi industry. It casts a negative light on them at a time when people are already switching to Uber for better service. It also ignores the fact that – in my view – Uber ain’t going anywhere.

  I’ve been a vocal supporter of Uber on this blog and I continue to believe that it will continue to prove to be a good thing for both consumers and for cities. In fact, famed startup investor Paul Graham once tweeted that because Uber is so clearly a good thing, you can tell how corrupt a city is by how hard it fights against it. This has become the truism among today’s urbanites.

  At the same time though, I am trying to take a balanced view on this issue, which is what got me thinking about the work of Jenny Holzer. Protect me from what I want. Today, I want Uber. But I am trying to think of where that want might lead me.

  Like a lot of private companies, the goal of Uber is monopoly profits. They would love to control the market. And that’s not a knock against them. It is just business. But I am imagining a market where only Uber exists.

  When I was in Miami last week I switched back and forth between UberX and regular taxis. Because Art Basel was going on, Uber was frequently in surge pricing. Sometimes as high as 4x. So in those cases, I just hailed a regular cab. Thankfully the cabs there are pretty reasonably priced and easily to hail. The driver didn’t ask me if I liked the electronic music playing on the satellite radio, but that’s not a big deal.

  But what if I didn’t have the option of hailing a regular cab? What if Uber was my only option and I had to put up or shut up when prices were 4x? That would be suboptimal in my books.

  So what does this all mean? 

  I am an Uber customer. I do not want and I do not believe it will go away. But I also believe that our public policy should encourage competition in the taxi marketplace. Competition holds people and companies accountable. It means that if you stop creating value, you will go out of business.

  It’s for that reason that I think the taxi lobby is wrong in trying to force Uber to shut down. And it’s for that reason that cities are going to have to work very hard at crafting the right kind of public policy. I am optimistic that Toronto will make that happen. But as we’ve seen today, there will be bumps along the way.

  2015.12.10

• Interview with urbanist Richard Florida

  UrbanToronto.ca recently published an extended interview / discussion with urbanist Richard Florida about cities and, in particular, the future of Toronto. What it’s doing wrong. What it’s doing right. And what it should be doing to properly position itself for the future.

  What became clear to me after reading the interview is that Toronto is really at an inflection point. We are transitioning into a much bigger global city and we have yet to fully embrace the city that we are quickly becoming:

  “…the city was—and is—still too dominated by a NIMBYist, faux-progressive left that refuses to engage with having to build a dense, transit-oriented, and inclusive city.”

  The interview is packed with information and it’s definitely worth a read this morning. There’s a lot I agree with, including his views on transit and his positions on the Island Airport and the Gardiner East – which is a topic that is near and dear to me.

  In case you don’t have time to read the full interview, below are 3 excerpts.

  First, on the Gardiner East:

  “There’s also a learning curve to Mayors, and I think they tend to get a better understanding of urbanism over the course of their tenures,” Florida adds, hoping that Tory, self-described as an “ideologue on very few issues,” will make pro-urban decisions as his time in office continues. “For one thing, I really hope that he reverses his decision on the Gardiner,” Florida continues, highlighting Tory’s controversial support for renovating—as opposed to demolishing—the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway as an example of especially poor urban policy.

  Second, on the need for a true urban agenda at all levels of government:

  Offering prescriptions for the future, Florida calls for a “virtual moratorium on road-building,” arguing that the perpetuation of an automobile culture hinders a city’s creative capacity, with little exchange of ideas and culture occurring when people are sitting in their cars, and not engaging with life on the street. “The city also needs a more committed Federal partner,” Florida adds, calling for a ’ministry of cities’ to help provide a vision for growth and fund urban infrastructure projects. 

  And third, on the value of Toronto’s openness:

  “A huge reason for the city’s continued success—as we trudge along despite our lack of urban vision and reactionary tendencies—is the fact that we continued to be so open to newcomers, allowing a great deal of global creative energy to be harnessed. It means we can fuck up a lot, but as long as we continue to remain open, we’ll have an important edge.”

  There’s a lot of great discussion fodder here. I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

  2015.12.08

• The city is the brand

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  I was reading the internet this morning and I stumbled upon an interesting urban blogger from Oslo named Erling Fossen. Most of his writing is in Norwegian, but he does have a section called “City Notes” that is in English.

  I enjoyed this paragraph titled, "The city is brand.” It is taken from a post called, “7 lessons from Oslo Urban Arena.”

  As cities compete to attract talents, companies and investment, many cities have branded themselves as either the most creative city in the world, the smartest or the most liveable. In many occasions cities develop slogans to go with the message. But as brand expert Martin Boisen said: No one has ever moved to a city due to a logo. Action speaks louder than logos. Branding cities can actually be helpful. The world is a stage, and your city has a role to play. The first message is to avoid being a copy cat and focus on your own uniqueness. It is also just as important to involve a larger community to make branding work. It takes a village to brand a place. Equally important is to have strong leadership communicating the message. Strong leaders can rock the boat.

  I’ve written about city branding quite a bit here and this has always been my message. An excellent city brand must stem from some form of reality. If you want to be the most creative or the greenest city in the world, then you have to live and breathe that philosophy.

  I also feel strongly about not copying other cities. You might think that having (insert thing here), which was pioneered in (insert city here), will make you world-class. But that’s a pretty banal way of going about things.

  Instead, to reiterate Fossen, focus on your own uniqueness. Then market the hell out of it.

  2015.12.07

• Insecure cities

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  I am back in Toronto and ready to resume my normal routines. I am definitely a creature of habit.

  But boy is Miami an incredible city.

  The interesting thing that I noticed about Miami though is that – despite its reputation as a global capital of glam – it still shares the same kinds of insecurities that many other cities experience.

  I was reading the December 2015 / January 2016 issue of Surface this past weekend and there was an interview with billionaire real estate developer Jorge Pérez. He’s the CEO of The Related Companies and worth somewhere over $3 billion. In the interview he said that his biggest focus these days is on “Miami becoming a world-class city.”

  I love that. Cities need strong proponents. And he is doing a lot. To give one example, he donated $40 million (half in cash and half in art) to create the new Pérez Art Museum Miami.

  But for the Torontonians reading this post, how many times have you also heard the words world-class? At this point it makes me cringe when I hear someone say it. Usually it accompanies a sentence such as: “If we do (insert thing here), we will then be world-class.”

  I also attended a talk at Design Miami, where some of the panelists were going on about how Miami’s restaurant scene was pretty pitiful about 10 years ago, but how that’s not the case today. Now, it is finally becoming remarkable.

  That struck home for me because I’ve said similar things about Toronto: “10 years ago Toronto was like that, but now we are like this.” Makes me think that I’ll be saying the same thing about Toronto 10 years from today.

  So it seems like many, or perhaps most, cities have an insecure side to them. And that can be a powerful motivator for driving growth and change. Cities, like people, need that fire in the belly.

  But at the same time, there’s something nice about being grateful for what you have. And Miami certainly has a lot going for it. See you soon, Miami.

  2015.12.06