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

  • Vancouver is probably getting transport pricing

    Earlier this month, Vancouver City Council approved a plan that will have staff developing a “transport pricing” strategy for the city’s core. (Transport pricing is just another term for road pricing or congestion pricing.) The plan is for staff to go away and work on this and then report back to Council with a pricing strategy sometime in 2022. At that point Council will look to approve the plan and it will all get implemented by 2025. Or at least that’s the plan. I remain somewhat skeptical because Vancouver certainly isn’t the first Canadian city to look at pricing its roads and congestion. Toronto has tried and failed. And so if Vancouver does end up doing this, they’ll likely be the first city in the country.

    So why are they doing this, or least trying to do this? Well, if you’re a regular reader of this blog you’ll know that I’ve been a supporter of road pricing for many years. Lots of old posts over here. But in the case of Vancouver, their stated goals are really as follows: 1) They want to reduce congestion and encourage people to use other forms of mobility; 2) they want to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030; and 3) they want another revenue stream that can be used to fund things like transit and active transport. Put differently, it’s about pricing/taxing the things that we want less of and then using that money to pay for the things we want more of.

    Some of you might be wondering whether this is a good idea at a time when the centralizing pull of cities is being called into question. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that Vancouver thinks it needs at least five years to implement its transport pricing. We’ll be living through the roaring twenties by then. I am also a firm believer that cities are going to snap back significantly faster than most people think.

  • The Ringelmann Effect and why Zoom meetings suck

    For a lot of us, this is now month eight of constant Zooming. The big question, of course, is whether this new habit is going to stick or if it will wane along with the virus. Because the degree in which it sticks will have an impact on cities, real estate, and how we move about these spaces. Anecdotally, it would seem that a lot of people seem to think that some element of working from home is destined to remain. People like the increased flexibility. And I don’t disagree that flexibility is an attractive feature.

    Personally, I am bullish on cities and on old-fashioned human interaction, because here’s how I am feeling about virtual meetings. One, we all have too many of them right now. The barriers to scheduling a virtual meeting are extremely low (one click in Outlook), and so it’s painfully easy to fill up a calendar with them. Two, it can be difficult to stay focused when jumping from back-to-back virtual meetings all day. And three, because we all have too many of these meetings, everyone is trying to multitask and respond to emails at the same time. This degrades the overall effectiveness of each meeting.

    Sarah Gershman published an article earlier this year in Harvard Business Review where she talked about some of the problems surrounding online meetings. One explanation for why many of us are losing focus is something known as the “Ringelmann Effect.” The theory here is that as group sizes increase, it can be easy for individuals to feel less responsibility for a meeting’s outcome. So they tune out. Max Ringelmann, who was a French engineer, demonstrated this effect by asking both individuals and groups to pull on a rope. What he found was that people generally tried less when they were part of a bigger group. There’s always somebody else who will pick up the slack, right?

    Sarah makes the argument that this phenomenon gets magnified in virtual meetings. We’re all just a little box, sometimes existing on another page, hidden mostly from view. Surely there’s another black box somewhere in this meeting who will pull the rope for me.

  • Restaurants are a central pillar of superstar cities

    How important are urban restaurants? This recent article by Eduardo Porter makes the argument that they are a “central pillar of superstar cities.” They are the social spaces that draw young and smart people to cities (see above) and that fuel our creative economy.

    According to Eduardo, in the 1970s, urban consumers in US cities typically devoted about 28% of their overall food budget to dining out. As of 2019, restaurants, bars, food trucks, and other dining establishments consumed about 47% of this budget for people living in cities with a population greater than 2.5 million.

    By comparison, people who resided outside of an urban area in 2019, spent only about 38% of their food budget on eating out. Still, these are substantial numbers. A big part of the food and drink that we consume is, at least during normal times, happening outside of where we live.

    Right now is certainly not the finest hour for cities. Urban amenities (like restaurants) and social networks are part of what make living in a city so enjoyable. And these two things have been greatly (and rightly) reduced. But I don’t for a second doubt the overall resiliency of our cities.

    This isn’t their first crisis and, unfortunately, it won’t be their last.

    Image: New York Times

  • Tech and New York City

    Tech:NYC has just launched a new podcast called Talk:NYC. The first episode is with venture capitalist and blogger Fred Wilson. (Though, it should be noted that Fred and his wife, Joanne, are also involved in the real estate development space.) In this episode, Julie Samuels and Fred Wilson talk about why he came to New York, how to manage through a downturn, where working spaces are going, and why the magic of New York is still there — among a bunch of other things. Click here if you can’t see the embedded podcast below.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-212806065/talknycep01fredwilson

  • A child of catastrophe

    It used to be the case that cities had a habit of catching fire and burning down. Toronto had the Great Fires of 1849 and 1904. Chicago had the Great Fire of 1871. And the same can be said about many other cities. In fact, you probably weren’t considered a real city until you had some sort of “Great Fire.” But as Derek Thompson points out in this recent Atlantic article about urban comebacks, disasters have a way of forcing positive change:

    The 21st-century city is the child of catastrophe. The comforts and infrastructure we take for granted were born of age-old afflictions: fire, flood, pestilence. Our tall buildings, our subways, our subterranean conduits, our systems for bringing water in and taking it away, our building codes and public-health regulations—all were forged in the aftermath of urban disasters by civic leaders and citizen visionaries.

    As Charles Dickens famously described, British cities in the early years of the Industrial Revolution were grim and pestilential. London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds—they didn’t suffer from individual epidemics so much as from overlapping, never-ending waves of disease: influenza, typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis.

    It’s somewhat unfortunate, but oftentimes we need something to break before any action is taken. There’s a bias toward the status quo. Otherwise, it becomes a question of, “what did we do last time? Well that worked just fine. Let’s do it again.” But hopefully all of this makes you at least a little optimistic about the future. Because history has taught us that when faced with adversity, we don’t typically turn our back on our cities. Rather we turn around and make them better.

    Photo by Tomek Baginski on Unsplash

  • Chicago’s Winter Dining Challenge

    This has been a summer of cycling, playing tennis (poorly) on Toronto’s public courts, and eating and drinking on sidewalks — sometimes with, get this, no fencing. But winter will arrive in this part of the world at some point and that will mean having to rethink our patios. I’m certain that we’ll be doing everything we can to extend the season this year because we are already seeing that take place in other cities.

    Last month, the City of Chicago launched, in partnership with IDEO, BMO Harris Bank, and the Illinois Restaurant Association, a competition called the Winter Dining Challenge. The goal is exactly what I just described. It’s to solicit creative ideas for how Chicago can make outdoor dining feasible all throughout the winter. (Chicago and Toronto have similar winters.)

    Domes, pods, and heaters are likely to feature in the submissions, which makes me wonder at what point are you basically now considered to be “inside” as opposed to “outside.” Presumably fresh air needs to factor. But I should really reserve judgement until the top ideas are selected. If you’d like to submit an “idea, concept, or startup,” you have until September 7, 2020 at 11:30 PM PT. Here’s the link.

    Photo by Austin Neill on Unsplash

  • A few thoughts about housing supply

    Here are a few things to consider.

    One, the home you live in was likely built by a person or company that was trying to make a profit.

    Two, when your home was being developed and built, it probably upset a bunch of people. Both because something new was coming and because construction can be annoying.

    Three, your home was built using materials and construction techniques that were readily available at the time. Some of those materials and techniques may no longer be practical.

    Four, when your home was complete, somebody probably thought, “boy, they don’t build them like they used to.”

    Five, the need for new housing doesn’t stop just because you now have a home.

  • Photoblog: Humans are social creatures

    The above photo was taken on Lake Couchiching (off Lake Simcoe) with a DJI Mavic Mini.

    Here is the before straight from the drone.

    And here is the after with my Lightroom edits. I then cropped it to a 4×5 aspect ratio because wide landscape photos don’t show well on Instagram.

    For me, this scene is a reminder to remain bullish on cities. Take people out of the city. Put them on boats in the middle of a large lake. And they’ll still find a way to cluster together.

    Why? Because humans are social creatures.

  • The great balcony debate — revisited

    Over the years, I have written a few times about the great balcony debate. It’s a discussion that comes up time and time again as those of us in the building industry go through the process of designing new residential buildings. One the one hand there are the arguments that balconies don’t really get used all that much and that they are bad for the environment (thermal bridging through the slabs). And on the other hand there’s the argument that, regardless of whether or not they actually get used, they form an important part of the buying/renting decision. Usually the former is made by architects and engineers and the latter is made by sales and marketing teams.

    Back in 2016, I remarked that I was starting to see more Juliet balconies across Toronto (could have been some sort of bias at work — like when you’re shopping for a new car and then all you can see is that new car). Regardless, there are countless examples of architects and developers omitting balconies and finding creative ways to connect inside and out. But given that this pandemic has forced us to reconsider and reallocate how we use space in our cities, it’s probably worth revisiting the great balcony debate. Has COVID-19 changed how we view outdoor space? And if so, will it last?

    I’ve decided to start with a Twitter survey (see above tweet) and then either do a long-form article or a series of posts on the topic. If you have any thoughts that you would like to share (ideally before I write), please leave a comment below or on Twitter.

  • Job mixes and job losses

    Recent job posting data from Indeed has revealed a bit of a paradox. The metro areas where more people are able to work from home — i.e. tech hubs and finance centers — have experienced larger job posting declines compared to all other US metros, as well as to tourism destinations such as Las Vegas and Orlando.

    We know that the hospitality and tourism sector has been the hardest hit by the current environment. But that doesn’t appear to be the biggest driver for overall job losses. In fact, one of the key takeaways is that job losses between February and June 2020 look to be correlated with metro size. That is, the bigger the city, the greater the job losses (% change).

    So what’s going on?

    Well, according to Indeed, it’s important to look at the local job mix. In “work-from-home metros” like Seattle, San Francisco, and Boston, there has been a relatively high percentage of people who were able to quickly transition to working from home. This is reflected in the anonymized mobile-device data for these cities. More people at home. Less mobility. And a seemingly stronger adherence to social-distancing protocols.

    The problem with this outcome is that it crushes most of the in-person sectors and businesses that relied on this workforce moving about the city — things like food prep and beauty & wellness. I mean, just think about all of the food businesses that survive off lunches in a CBD. According to Indeed, it is these sorts of local economic connections that have really been driving the declines in job postings and overall payroll employment during lockdown.