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

Tag: cities

  • Audio is the poor person’s augmented reality

    I have long been interested in the work of entrepreneur Dennis Crowley. He is perhaps best known as the co-founder of Foursquare, which popularized location “check-ins.” But he’s created a bunch of other stuff too. The common theme is that his products exist at the intersection of tech and cities (the physical world), which is probably why I’ve been so interested over the years.

    Check-ins, for example, allowed you to say to all your friends, “hey everyone, I’m at this bar.” It was a way of checking if anyone you knew was there too, or close by, and also a way of inviting your friends to come join you if they were so inclined.

    This was extremely popular for a period of time, but then kind of fizzled out, and Foursquare was forced to pivot and try a bunch of other things. And in the end, this “problem” of augmenting the physical world with our social graph (and other information) never really got solved. I mean, this is broadly the promise of augmented reality.

    Thankfully, Dennis has a new company (Hopscotch Labs) and a new tech/city product called Beebop (which is currently in private beta). Here’s how it works (excerpt from this Crazy Stupid Tech interview):

    It’s an iPhone app. There’s not much to do in the app, there aren’t a lot of buttons to press. Once it’s installed and you set the permissions, every time you put on your headphones — your AirPods or any other headphones, it doesn’t matter—it chimes and says, “Beebop’s been activated.” (Beebop is the first project from the company, Hopscotch Labs.)

    Then as you walk around the city, it will tell you things about certain places. Eventually, if I walk by a place where my friend was, it tells me that Alex was here two days ago. If I walk by a place and someone’s inside, it tells me that Max is inside that place. A lot of it is still under development. Eventually, people leave a comment at a place. Imagine Twitter. It is as if you leave a tweet and you stick it in the ground. When you walk over it, you hear it.

    So like before, it’s about experiencing cities:

    It’s been a long time since I built something. What’s different now? AI is what’s different. You know what’s different? Everyone’s on their phones all the time. Back in my day, we made stuff for the streets. You would use your phone, you’d put it away, and stuff would happen. Where are the people making that stuff anymore? All we make is stuff that makes you look at the screen. Let’s make stuff that gets you out in the world, where you’re not glued to the devices. You’re out there doing stuff. Big companies out there aren’t going to make stuff like this.

    The key idea here is that augmented reality doesn’t have to just be visual. Visual also requires somebody to figure out a cool set of glasses that people will actually wear out in public. Who knows when this happens, though I do think it will eventually.

    So what Dennis is doing is making something that works today — with audio. This has been called the poor person’s augmented reality, but I think that’s selling it short. This is really clever. And once again, it’s fundamentally connected to how people live in and interact with our cities.

  • The Eiffel Tower and the awful tower

    It was explained to me this week that Paris has two principal towers: The Eiffel Tower and the awful tower. The awful tower is, of course, the Tour Montparnasse. Completed in 1973, the Tour Montparnasse is tall, brown, monolithic, and seemingly out of place with the rest of Paris’ urban context. At the time of its completion it was the tallest building in Paris and it remains the tallest building outside of La Defense (business district).

    But the Eiffel Tower is also tall. In fact, it’s taller. So how is it that the Eiffel Tower became such a symbol for Paris and the Tour Montparnasse became the “awful tower?” Both were intended to represent modernity (at their respective times) and both were controversial at the time of their construction.

    Today people respond to these two towers very differently. Is it because the Eiffel Tower is set in a beautiful park and more separated from its urban context? Or is it because the Eiffel Tower has had almost another 100 years to settle in. It’s not exactly clear. But we do know that as humans we have a bias toward the status quo. And so I like to think of change in the following way:

    – There’s change that people immediately like

    – There’s change that people hate and will always hate

    – And there’s change that people initially hate but will eventually like

    The Eiffel Tower, you could argue, falls into category number three. It was big, modern, and alarmingly different when it was built at the end of the 19th century. But now people seem to like it. I know this based on the number of street vendors selling little replicas. For the record, I have yet to see little replicas of the Tour Montparnasse sitting on blankets on the street. I’m a buyer if I do come across one though.

    But is it really right to place Montparnasse into category number two? Could it be that it just needs more time to settle in and then it will ultimately move into number three? Maybe. In 2017, an international design competition was held to find an architect for the redesign of the tower. Studio Gang submitted an entry. But Nouvelle AOM was ultimately selected.

    I wasn’t part of the selections committee, but I think a good way to evaluate the success of this project will be whether or not it moves the tower into category three. That is, people start to like it. Then maybe Paris will become known as a city of two towers, as opposed to a city with one nice one and one awful one.

  • New Zealand just abolished single-family zoning (for the most part)

    New Zealand has been in the news lately for sweeping housing legislation that effectively abolishes single-family zoning throughout most of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch.

    But before I get into how this will all work, here’s a bit of background from an article that Matt Gurney wrote talking about Toronto’s inability to build affordable housing and create safe streets:

    Now it’s time to segue back to the New Zealand thing, and there’s no particularly graceful way to do it, so I’ll just be blunt and inelegant: the federal government in New Zealand intervened on local housing rules because there was a crisis that local leaders were unable or unwilling to address. New Zealand has severe housing-affordability challenges (though Canada seems determined to close the gap). This has been a problem in New Zealand for years, and not enough was done, so the federal government stepped in… The government expects this to immediately spur construction of new housing units.

    It is no doubt a top down approach. But we all know how difficult it is to build anything at all when you start from the other end.

    So the way this new legislation will work is that it forces local councils to allow landowners to build up to 3 homes and 3 storeys on most lots. This is instead of 1 home per lot. The maximum site coverage has also been increased to 50%. And all of this will be available on an as-of-right basis, so no special permissions or variances needed.

    The pitch is that this will unlock as many as 105,000 new homes in already built-up areas. This is, of course, a good thing for a whole host of reasons. It uses land and infrastructure more efficiently, it makes public transit more viable, and it increases housing supply in a highly constrained market.

    I suspect that we will be seeing a lot more of this in the coming years.

  • A few observations from Paris

    The last time I was in Paris was in 2006. That’s a long time ago and so it was great to be back in the city earlier this week. I don’t know the city as well as I do many other cities, but I speak enough French to be dangerous and we spent a good amount of time on this trip just exploring. On average, we clocked about 20,000 steps a day. So here’s a list of some of the things I was reminded of or learned of on this visit. If any of you are more familiar with the city, please feel free to speak up in the comment section below.

    • I love Paris.
    • The Parisian art of people watching is alive and well. One of my favorite things about Paris is how so much of the cafe seating faces out toward the street. That’s what you’re supposed to be watching: urban life.
    • Most cities have a clear message. In Los Angeles, it’s probably that you should be more famous. In Boston, it’s arguably that you should be smarter. And in New York, it is perhaps that you should be richer. In Paris, the message feels loud and clear: You should be more fashionable.
    • Compared to Toronto, the center of Paris feels far more static. Less construction. Less change. Less that is new. That’s not such a bad thing given how beautiful the city is. But in my view, cities are about balancing preservation and progress. From what I could tell, a lot of the new construction seemed to be happening in the suburbs and in the outskirts of the city.
    • That said, COVID feels much further along in Paris. The city was very open and everyone seemed to be back in the office. Locals said that the city was operating at maybe 80%. It felt busy.
    • Dress shoes are dead in Paris. Everyone wears cool sneakers no matter how young or old. Think business suits with Nike Air Maxes. My hypothesis is that it’s just far more practical given how much people walk in Paris. I plan to adopt this strategy immediately.
    • In addition to walking, everyone seemingly bikes and/or uses an electric scooter. Again, it didn’t seem to matter how young or old. Paris also seems to have solved the scooter clutter problem, as has many other cities. There are designated spots (painted lines next to on-street car parking) and that’s where you’ll find the scooters. Toronto needs to get on board.
    • Traveling at 300 km/h on a train is a highly civilized way to move between urban centers.
    • There’s nothing wrong with having a picnic and drinking a bottle of wine (or two) in a park. In fact, it is probably something that should be celebrated. Let people be grown-ups.
    • When you purchase a baguette, you should immediately take a bite out of it to see how fresh it is.
    • The Eiffel Tower, much like the CN Tower, looks far better when illuminated.
    • Balconies of any size can be wonderful. We had a small Juliet balcony off of our hotel room in Nice and we used it every day for croissant eating and to dry our bathing suits. In a more permanent situation, I am sure we would have started growing things on it.
    • Midrise buildings do indeed create nice urban street walls. But it’s important to keep in mind that Paris’ midrise blocks are also deep and dense and with lots of courtyard conditions. That’s how the city is able to house so many people at such low building heights.
    • Facing conditions between buildings is less of a concern when you employ less glass. Smaller punched windows allow you to better manage privacy. I would go so far as to argue that if Paris were an all-glass city, much of its current built form would be fairly unlivable.

    What did I miss in this list?

    Photo by Alexander Kagan on Unsplash

  • 🙌 La Bovida

    Paris 1e

  • Unicorns overwhelmingly originate in big cities

    In the world of startups, a unicorn is used to refer to a company with a market cap greater than $1 billion. A decacorn, the latest benchmark, is what it sounds like in that it’s a company with a market cap greater than $10 billion.

    While unicorn status is just one measure, valuations are an important yardstick for cities and countries. How many big new companies are you creating? That is a critical question because, presumably, these big new companies are going to create a bunch of new jobs and generate a lot of new wealth for people.

    This recent blog post by Elad Gil is a great summary of what’s happening in the world from this perspective. The raw data is also available if you’d like to dig deeper.

    Here are the number of new unicorns since October 2020 by city:

    Silicon Valley, not surprisingly, continues to dominate, followed by New York.

    Here is a breakdown for the United States as a whole:

    Miami and Austin have been in the news a lot over the past year and their startup scenes may very well be on the rise relative to other US cities. But it’s interesting to see other smaller cities on this list, like Salt Lake City, who are, at least right now, holding their own.

    I found this last set of two charts particularly interesting:

    They are showing unicorn count (first) and unicorn market cap (second) as a percentage of their respective countries. For example, Silicon Valley is sitting at about 47% and 51%, respectively. So about half of all unicorns in the US have originated from this geography.

    But for most other cities on this list, the percentage is much higher and, in many cases, it is 100%. (Silicon Valley is perhaps relatively low because the US has lots of other big and important cities.) For me, this shows the continued dominance of cities. If you’re building the next great unicorn or decacorn, the data tells us that you’re probably doing it in a big city somewhere. And I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

  • Patio season: on

    Shot on a DJI Mavic Mini and edited in Lightroom.

  • It’s okay to put buildings close together

    This morning I came across this beautiful photo by @callicles of the 11th in Paris. After admiring it for a few moments, I then immediately tweeted it out with the above caption: “It’s okay to put buildings close together.” Because here’s the thing about this photo: It represents one of the great paradoxes of city building. When most people look at this photo, I suspect that they will find it beautiful. They will like the mid-rise architecture and they will like the quaint European-scaled streets. But despite its fairly universal appeal, very few cities are able to build this way today. It’s often not allowed. So instead what people do is travel to Europe in the summer, sit in cafes, admire the architecture and urban design, and then lament the fact that we don’t build cities like we used to.

    What is it that makes this intersection so inviting? Well, the buildings are tight up against each other. I’m guessing that the right-of-ways (ROWs) in this picture are maybe 6-9 m wide. There are no building setbacks or stepbacks to speak of, save and except for the penthouse floors which taper back slightly. And so all of the spaces in these buildings would likely have some sort of direct facing condition with their opposing neighbors (but partially mitigated by the fact that these aren’t all glass buildings). The ratio of ROW to building height is, I’m guessing, something like 1:4, which, at the end of the day, is a large part of the reason why these streets feel so intimate and inviting. The buildings frame the streets and public realm.

    What I just described breaks many of the guidelines that I suspect many of you in the industry are accustomed to following. In our world, the streets should be wider to allow for adequate fire and service vehicle access. The buildings should stepback to allow light to reach the sidewalks, to mitigate impacts on any surrounding single-family homes, and to provision for sky views. Here in Toronto, the midrise guidelines also stipulate that buildings should have a ROW to building height ratio that is closer to 1:1. Though to be fair this guidance is often rightly broken. But the truth remains, we generally don’t build like this anymore. Why is that?

    It’s not because we can’t do it. We certainly could. We are, for whatever reasons, choosing not to. Is it because we’re bad at understanding what we actually like and what makes for great cities? Is it because what we end up liking is a bit counterintuitive? My unproven and untested theory is that it is at least partially the result of an approach to planning that is defensive — instead of offensive — in nature. We plan around and bow completely to existing contexts. We plan to mitigate impacts. We plan to satisfy some very individualistic concerns about how cities and neighborhoods should be built. For better or for worse, we plan to piss off the least amount of people. Politics also play an outsized role.

    What is far less common to think about is how to plan offensively. The fact of the matter is that the Paris we all love today pissed off a lot of people when it was being constructed. The approach was top-down and hugely disruptive. It ignored and completely erased much of the city’s previous urban context. Artists at the time, and probably many others, despised the new regularity of Paris’ street wall buildings. They longed for the old hodgepodge of medieval blocks and the visual variety that they created. But today, it’s hard not to think of this offensive move as anything but visionary. Of course, there are also countless examples of top-down offenses turning out terribly bad for cities.

    Perhaps the right approach, then, is to simply start being more deliberate about introducing elements of planning offense. My friend David Wex of Urban Capital likes to remind me that Montreal is a city with grandeur and that Toronto, for the most part, is a city without it. So as I have argued before, over here, I think it’s time we rethink our approach. Instead of just worrying about things like shadow impacts and angular planes (defensive), we should also be asking ourselves offensive questions. How refreshing would it be to sit down in a project meeting and have someone ask: “Okay, but does this design contribute to the overall grandeur and beauty of our city?”

    And maybe once we take this new perspective, we’ll come to the conclusion that sometimes it’s okay to put buildings close together.

  • Just how valuable is public transit?

    Benjamin Dachis and Rhys Godin of the C.D. Howe Institute have a new report out talking about the effect of COVID-19 on the future of public transit in Canadian cities. In it, they make the argument that public transit is a key enabler of the agglomeration economies that make cities so valuable. And right now, most people aren’t using it (see above).

    Why are agglomeration economies so important?

    According to some studies, doubling the population of an urban area has tended to increase mean incomes by between 3-8%. In the Canadian context, similar research has found that people living in more populated regions (cities) tend to have incomes that are between 3-5% higher than those living in more rural areas. So when it comes to average incomes, bigger cities tend to be better. (Does Zoom change this? I’m not convinced.)

    Of course, to make bigger cities function properly, you generally need public transit. And when you do have fast and reliable transit, that, they argue, is going to help drive the agglomeration economies which ultimately help to increase incomes. Because of this important relationship, Dachis and Godin argue that Canadian governments have a habit of systematically undervaluing the importance of transit investment.

    If you’re interested in reading the full report, click here.

  • The resilient story of Toronto’s tall towers

    The Urban Land Institute Toronto is hosting an event and panel discussion on April 8, 2021 about the future of high-rises in our cities. Here’s the blurb:

    Against the backdrop of the pandemic and its toll, what is the future of high-rises in our cities? What role do tall towers now play in shaping Toronto’s identity? While the pandemic has accelerated existing large trends, residential tall towers are proving the durability of a quality urban centre and hyper-urban lifestyles in Toronto and around the world.

    An introduction will be provided by James Parakh (author, Fellow of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and Urban Design Manager for the Toronto & East York District) and then a discussion will be moderated by Robyn Player (Director, BTY).

    The discussion will be focused on what ULI is calling three of Toronto’s most exciting tower projects under development: Pinnacle One Yonge, One Delisle, and 11 Yorkville.

    I will be on the panel (talking One Delisle) alongside Lee Koutsaris (VP, Sales and Marketing, Metropia) and Anson Kwok (VP, Sales and Marketing, Pinnacle International).

    If you’d like to register, you can do that over here. It should be a great/timely conversation.