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.

Tag: construction

  • Seattle vs. Vancouver

    A reader recently shared an article with me called: Why Seattle builds apartments, but Vancouver, BC, builds condos. Thanks for that.

    It’s a good summary of the differences between these two markets and why over the last five years less than 4% of all new residential units built in Seattle have been condos. The story is obviously very different in Vancouver.

    It’s also a good reminder that incentives matter. Capital has a funny way of flowing to where the returns are greatest.

    Chart: Sightline Institute

  • A sneak peek of One Spadina Crescent

    Earlier this week I got a sneak peek of One Spadina Crescent – the new building for the Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto. 

    The renovation and addition was designed by the Boston-based firm NADAAA. And let me tell you, it’s absolutely spectacular.

    I was in a rush at the time and I didn’t have my real camera on me, but I managed to quickly grab this snap:

    It’s of the third floor. 

    What you see in the middle are steps leading down to an “open bleacher space” that functions as a crit space and as an oculus that brings light into the core of the building. In the middle of the building is a large flex space.

    Because the building effectively sits in the middle of Spadina Avenue, the windows on the right side (above) look directly up the street, as if you were standing in the middle of it. I wish I had betters photos to share with you all.

    When you’re an architecture student, you spend almost all of your waking time in studio. I can certainly think of worse buildings to be cooped up in. I’m excited to see it in full swing come September.

    Click here if you’d like to see renderings of the building.

  • Where the cranes are

    Earlier this week the Seattle Times published the following graphic showing the US cities with the most (construction) cranes up in the air at the end of 2016:

    At the top of the list is Seattle with 62. And in second place is Chicago with 56. 

    You really need to see these numbers over time to get a better sense of activity. But supposedly, Seattle has been holding pretty steady. Also, these numbers only include cranes within each city proper. The suburbs don’t seem to be counted.

    To put these numbers into perspective, here’s a snippet from the article:

    “Seattle remains behind Toronto, which has 81 cranes, for the North American lead. In Australia, the Middle East, and elsewhere, there are cities where more than 100 cranes are at work.”

    I wonder which city has the global lead. Any guesses?

  • Mass timber tower time lapse

    Over the past few years there’s been growing interest in using mass timber for high-rise buildings (now colloquially referred to as “plyscrapers”).

    One project that got a lot of attention last year is Brock Commons (student residence) at the University of British Columbia. It is an 18-storey hybrid mass timber tower.

    The first and second floor (slab) and the two cores are poured-in-place concrete. After that, the other 16 floors of the tower consist of 5-ply cross laminated timber (CLT) panels and glue laminated timber (glulam) columns running every 10 feet. The roof is steel and metal decking.

    Below is a great time lapse video of the building under construction once it had switched over to timber. The wood construction portion started on June 6, 2016 and finished on August 10, 2016. So 2 floors per week.

    The video is well-annotated so that you know what week of construction it is, how many wood installers are on-site, which structural members are going in (along with their dimensions), and so on. The CLT panels are only 169mm thick.

    Click here if you can’t see the video below.

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

  • Triple-glazed sliding doors (or walls?)

    After my post about “the great balcony debate”, there was a bit of discussion on Twitter. Ken Wilcox then responded with a video talking about the mixed-use Timmerhuis building in Rotterdam designed by OMA

    At the 1 minute mark there’s a clip of one of the residents opening a large set of sliding doors. Here’s a screenshot of what that looks like:

    image

    I did a bit of digging on the project and found this fact sheet. The sliding doors in the residential units measure 1.8m x 2.6m. They go from floor-to-ceiling (~8′-6″). The windows are also triple-glazed! (3 glass panes + 2 air chambers.)

    I think this is a great way to open up a suite to the outdoors. It also looks like the glass balustrades sit inside, which keeps the building’s exterior envelope uninterrupted. Some of the other suites have large terraces where the building steps back.

    In case you’re wondering, the construction costs for the entire project was about €100 million and the total gross floor area (including all of the non-residential uses) is about 45,000 m² (~484,200 sf). Unit rate seems reasonable given that triple-glazing is virtually unheard of in Toronto.

    P.S. I am having some technical difficulties with Tumblr (my blogging platform) and Mailchimp (my email service provider). They both had problems and a few daily emails didn’t get sent out. Sorry about that. Hopefully it’s resolved now. If you missed the last couple of posts, you can read them online.

  • Pause button

    Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam recently put forward a request for a report on the implementation of a 1-year moratorium (let’s ”hit the pause button”) on new tall building rezoning applications in the downtown core of Toronto. You can read the full letter here.

    Not surprisingly, the building industry doesn’t like this.

    But besides that obvious point, I did want to draw attention to the following comment made by Quadrangle Architects partner, Richard Witt (taken from this BuzzBuzzNews article):

    “The city has, for years, used the development charges that should have been used to upgrade infrastructure to artificially lower property taxes by putting the development charges into general revenue,” he says.

    The intent of development charges is that they fund the infrastructure required as a result of new development – everything from transit to water. In the US, they are (I think) more commonly called impact fees. In this case the name makes the intent quite clear.

    I am curious to what extent we are relying on development growth to fund the status quo. Because growth may not always be there. History has shown us that.

  • Adaptive reuse in Hamilton

    Yesterday evening I was in Hamilton, Ontario for an adaptive reuse building tour that was put on for the 2016 OPPI Symposium (Ontario Provincial Planners Institute). 

    Hamilton has lots of these sorts of projects underway. The city has a rich history and, because it never saw the development pressures that cities like Toronto saw from the 70s to 90s, many of these buildings now remain ready to be reused. That’s my theory at least.

    I was told that last year downtown Hamilton delivered about 600 residential units. This may not seem like a lot, but keep in mind that the number was zero for a very long time. In fact, just seeing a crane up in the air is exciting for those who lived through that period of inactivity. I can’t fully relate to that.

    But it’s not just development that is going on. It’s city building. 

    The city is creating new cultural spaces and developers such as Core Urban have carved out niches working on boutique-scaled “pain in the ass” heritage projects. How’s this for commitment: Core Urban has been awarded heritage builder of the year 3 times, but they have yet to work on a designated heritage property.

    I’ve said before that I think there’s a new breed of developer emerging in cities today. Hamilton is no exception. And that’s very exciting for this region.

    If you’re interested in Hamilton, check out the blog Rebuild Hamilton. It’s written by Thomas Allen who I think of as Mr. Hamilton. It’s a phenomenal resource for architecture and city enthusiasts.

    The photo at the top of this post was taken by me within the proposed Beasley Park Lofts by Stinson Developments.

  • Two open real estate development positions

    I recently alluded to some life changes on this blog. Well, I am now ready to share: I am leaving my development position at CAPREIT.

    I wasn’t intending to leave. I wasn’t looking to leave. And frankly, I felt conflicted. But sometimes life has a funny way of presenting opportunities that you just have to say yes to. As my mother likes to tell me: “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” More on this in a later post. Stay tuned.

    What I would like to talk about today are the opportunities that this may create for some of you. There are now two open development positions at CAPREIT. Both positions would be based in downtown Toronto (St. Lawrence Market).

    The first opportunity is essentially a Director level role where you would be responsible for growing the development team at CAPREIT. You should be able to lead a team, identify new development opportunities, create pro formas, assemble/manage consultant teams, secure development approvals for complex urban infill sites, and generally lead projects and people through the entire development lifecycle. For more information and to apply, click here.

    The second opportunity is at the Coordinator level. You would be reporting day-to-day to the above person and you should have working knowledge of the development process. For more information and to apply, click here.

    I would just like to add that in both cases you would be working on some very exciting urban infill projects and you would be joining an organization with great people and a great corporate culture. I mean this sincerely. If you have any questions about the two roles, feel free to reach out to me directly. And if you’re in the market, consider applying.

  • 3 obscure things to think about before buying a condo

    If you’re an architect, developer, or someone else in the business of building buildings, chances are you have an extensive mental list of things that you would think about before buying a piece of real estate. I know I certainly do. These are things you learn over time – sometimes by making mistakes.

    Depending on the type of real estate, this list would vary. So this is not going to be a comprehensive list of things to consider, by any means. But today I thought I would mention 3 things that a lot of people might not think about when buying a new condo, particularly when buying pre-construction off drawings.

    Noisy Adjacencies: 

    What’s around the suite? Elevator shafts, mechanical rooms, and gyms all create noise. There are measures to protect against all of these noises, but that doesn’t stop me from worrying about these sorts of things. For instance, in my experience, some (many?) condo gyms don’t have the right kind of floor to deal with dropping weights. In these cases, something is usually done after turnover to address the noise complaints.

    Exposed Overhangs: 

    Does the suite overhang the floor below or sit on top of a space that is exposed to the elements, such as a loading bay or walkway? If so, you might get a cold zone if it hasn’t been properly insulated or heat traced. Of course, most projecting condo balconies also create a thermal bridge that can create a cold zone around it. But the first example could be worse. If you live in a place that doesn’t have subarctic winters (Toronto) this may be a moot point.

    Transfer Floors: 

    The most efficient way to build a multi-family building is to repeat the same floor plan as you go up the building. This ensures that everything runs in a straight line. The minute you create stepbacks and offsets, you then need to start “transferring.” This means that structure and services will need to be brought from one location of the building to another. This can lead to deeper structural beams and additional bulkheads which could then impact ceiling heights in the suites. This won’t always be the case, but something to think about when you see dramatic changes in the building’s form next to your suite.

    Again, this is not a comprehensive list, but these are some of the small – perhaps anal – details that I would think about if I were buying a condo. Feel free to add other items in the comment section below. They don’t have to be anal-retentive in nature.

    If you’re on the building side, you work to get ahead of these issues by, for example, anticipating where you could need additional height for transfers and sound attenuation (such as around mechanical spaces). But buildings are complicated and sometimes things happen. It’s a long way from initial sketch to finished occupied building.

  • Understanding building areas is not as simple as it seems

    Understanding building areas is a fundamental component of real estate and development. But it can actually get surprisingly complicated. Definitions, naming conventions, and measurement techniques vary greatly around the world. 

    To some, “GLA” means gross leasable area. But to others, it means gross livable area. So it’s important to understand what exactly is being measured when someone tells you that that a building is X number of square feet. Are we talking gross building area, gross floor area, or rentable area? Does that number include the below-grade areas or just what is above-grade? To make matters even more complicated, there are nuances to consider depending on whether it’s a residential or commercial building. 

    By now, I am sure you’re starting to see how complicated something as seemingly simple as building areas can get. So let’s talk about some of the basics today. Again, definitions might vary depending on where in the world you area. They might even vary based on conventions you’ve adopted within your particular firm.

    Gross Building Area: Also referred to as Gross Construction Area by some, this is the total area of the building, measured to the outside walls without any deductions. As you’ll see later, some area definitions allow for certain deductions. Gross Building Area is important because it’s a big driver of your costs – specifically construction costs. This is how much building you’re building. But, and this is important, it does not drive your revenue. That comes later.

    Gross Floor Area: This is usually a specific locally-defined measurement convention. It often allows you to deduct certain areas from your gross building area, such as “major vertical penetrations” and below grade parking areas. This number doesn’t directly drive construction costs or revenue (saleable/rentable area), but it’s important because it’s what the city will use to determine important planning numbers such as the building’s density/floor space index and to calculate any applicable levies. It’s also a fairly public number and might be what the brokers are using to calculate, as one example, what certain land sold for on a per buildable square foot basis.

    Net Saleable/Rentable Area: This is a hugely important number because it directly drives revenue. It’s your top line. It’s the amount of space you can collect rent on or the amount of space that you can sell. And unless your revenue exceeds your costs (which you’ve calculated using the numbers above), you’re not going to be able to build. 

    Note: Commercial spaces (at least in this part of the world) often work a bit differently in that there is what is known as a gross-up factor. What that means is that tenants pay rent on portions of the common areas (such as corridors) that fall outside of what is known as their “usable area.” In this scenario, the rentable to usable area ratio (R/U) becomes important. Naturally tenants don’t like paying for a lot of space beyond their usable area.

    This is just a brief overview of building areas. A good architect will make sure that your building area calculations are meeting all local rules and conventions. But as a developer it’s important to know and understand what exactly is being measured and what the “loss factor” of your building is. In other words, how much space is being lost to areas that cannot be sold or rented? Typically, you want to minimize lost space, unless maybe you’re pushing some new concept.

    Anything to add to this building area summary? Do you use different terminology or conventions in your part of the world? Let us know in the comment section below. That would make for a fascinating discussion.