Tag: development

• A video and some art

  We made a video for our Junction House project. If you can’t see it embedded below, click here. You may have already seen some of the cut-downs on my socials, but this is the full version.

  [vimeo 293178524 w=640 h=300]

  The stickers under our projecting Junction House sign box irk me, but otherwise we’re all really happy with the way the video turned out. We wanted it to feel real and authentic.

  I am also thrilled to announce that we have partnered with a few local artists for this project. 

  The first is Leeay Aikawa. She is a multidisciplinary artist who moved to Toronto from Japan in 2003 and now works and resides in the Junction. We’re excited to have the opportunity to exhibit her work. You’ll find it in our “sales gallery” when that space opens.

  The next artist will remain a secret for now (though that’s a hint). Stay tuned to the blog and the socials.

  2018.10.11

• Battle of the Bungehuis

  

  This past July, Soho House Amsterdam opened up in the storied Bungehuis building. Not really news, other than the fact that FT just published this article talking about the building’s history and some of the project’s hurdles, which I of course found interesting.

  Completed in 1934, the Bungehuis originally served as the offices for a prominent trading company. The architect was ADN van Gendt. When he died during the building’s construction, Willem Jacob Klok took over.

  Also noteworthy about the building’s construction is that, according to Wikipedia, twenty houses had to be demolished in order for it to be constructed.

  This underscores a point that I have made before on the blog. Cities are not static. Most of us probably look at the Bungehuis and consider it to be quite a handsome piece of architecture. Some of us may even go so far as to say that we don’t make buildings like they used to.

  Soho House is on record saying that they were “not very budget-conscious” during the renovation because of the sense of responsibility that they felt around the building and its history.

  

  But I think it’s important to note that this building was initially built for a for-profit company and things had to be demolished in order for it to come to fruition. 

  I can’t say for sure whether this development was opposed in the 1930s, but it may have been. Cities and buildings have a way of ingratiating themselves over time.

  In any event, starting in the 1970s, the building became home to the arts faculty at the University of Amsterdam. And as recent as 2015, it became home to the Bungehuis occupations – a protest occupation started by students and staff of the University who were opposed to a slew of academic cuts.

  

  Then in a state of poor repair, the building was ultimately sold to Aedes Real Estate, who now leases it to the Soho House Group for their private club and 79 room hotel. Above is a picture of the club’s rooftop pool and lounge.

  The big hurdle, or at least one of them, was the fact that Amsterdam currently has a moratorium on new hotels – as a way to try and mitigate “overtourism” – unless it can be demonstrated that it will represent “an extraordinary addition to the existing stock.”

  Since Soho House Amsterdam opened in July, I guess we know the answer to that test. But it sounds like it may have been a battle. That wouldn’t be a first for this building.

  Images: Soho House Group

  2018.10.09

• Create things people love

  I just finished listening to this podcast about venture capital and consumer products. One of the underlying questions is whether we are currently in a “consumer downturn.” Rebecca Kaden of Union Square Ventures (USV) talks about the importance of “platform shifts” for venture returns. These are moments where a new technology hits the marketplace and there’s a corresponding mass consumer adoption. When and where will that next shift occur? Maybe it’ll be in real estate.

  I like the discussions at 10:00 and 13:50. The first deals with the importance of non-paid customer acquisition strategies for consumer products. Rather than relying on bought attention, you really need organic growth strategies, which is often an indication that people are passionate about your product. This is arguably more important when you’re fundamentally reliant on massive growth/scale, but whether we’re talking about software or a home, I still believe it’s paramount. Create things people love.

  The second point is about commerce, Amazon, and how USV avoids investing in companies that are unlikely to ever win against Bezos. Kaden’s position is that Amazon’s advantage is and has been more executional than structural. They are simply really good at doing things better. But Amazon wins at logistics, speed, and value. They are not as focused on experience, entertainment, and discovery. And people still want that.

  I’ll stop there. If you can’t see the podcast below, click here.

  [soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/507691569″ params=”color=#ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”300″ iframe=”true” /]

  2018.10.06

• The rise of proptech

  

  A friend of mine flipped me this New York Times article today talking about the rapidly growing interest in proptech and about Opendoor – a topic and a company that I have written about many times before on the blog.

  Here’s a snippet about proptech:

  The hauls are part of a race by investors to pour money into technology for real estate, or what Silicon Valley now calls proptech. Having watched tech start-ups upend old-line industries like taxis and hotels, venture capitalists are casting about for the next area to be infused with software and data. Many have homed in on real estate as a big opportunity because parts of the industry — like pricing, mortgages and building management — have been slow to adopt software that could make business more efficient.

  On the Opendoor front, which is the largest/most valuable company in the proptech category, they have now raised over $1 billion. By the end of this year they plan to be in 22 cities across the United States.

  Interestingly enough, they have started experimenting with other business models, beyond just buying and flipping homes. They now circumvent agents and sell some homes directly to customers.

  But Eric Wu, the CEO of Opendoor, believes that you can’t automate proper advice and so that will remain. The role of agents is simply about to shift from “administration” to that of “advisory”.

  I have been arguing for years that the home buying and selling process is ripe for change. And what we are seeing today is really the start of that.

  According to the NY Times, real estate tech startups raised $3.4 billion in funding last year. Some firms, such as Fifth Wall Ventures, are entirely dedicated to the space.

  This is money betting on change.

  Photo by Grant Lemons on Unsplash

  2018.09.29

• Rules are meant to be broken

  Things are busy right now as we get ready to unveil Junction House this fall and so I’m a bit behind on my news and reading. 

  I just finished reading Alex Bozikovic’s Globe article on BIG’s new KING Toronto project (official name). It is an interesting piece about creating villages and a sense of community in new developments – something that Bjarke Ingels has been focused on for many years. 

  Below are a few renderings of the project. I’m excited for this one. And as I said before on the blog, I am sure it will be precedent setting in a number of ways.

  

  One remark from the article that stood out for me is this one here:

  Still: The design breaks a lot of rules. Which is why it took two years of difficult negotiations with city planners to reach approvals. “We wanted it to be quieter,” says Lynda MacDonald, a senior Toronto planner who was involved in overseeing the project. “It’s a very large project, and we wanted to make sure it respected the character of King Street.”

  I am often asked why we don’t see more innovation in architecture and real estate. There are a number of reasons for that. One of them is risk. Development is in many ways a game of risk mitigation. 

  But another reason is that when you try and do something unconventional that disrupts the status quo, you also call into question the typical planning criteria used to evaluate projects. And that may slow you down.

  Alex accurately points out in his article that we are used to doing things around here in one of two ways:

  The King Street project is also an ambitious experiment with urban design. There are basically two species of tower in Toronto: a midrise slab of six to 10 storeys, which steps back at the top; and a “tower-and-podium,” a model borrowed from Vancouver that combines a fat, squared-off base (or “podium”) with a tall, skinny residential tower. Both can work, but can also create the big-box blandness that many people dislike about new urban housing.

  None of this is to suggest that we should ignore the character of a particular area. It is critical and I believe that KING Toronto has been mindful of that. 

  But I also firmly believe in ambitious city building and I think there’s no question that KING Toronto is doing exactly that.

  Images: Hayes Davison via Dezeen and courtesy of Westbank

  2018.09.22

• Housing supply and displacement in San Francisco

  

  Joe Cortright recently wrote about a study by Kate Pennington (UC Berkeley), which looked at the impact of housing production on legal eviction in San Francisco. The goal was to figure out if new housing supply actually causes displacement.

  To do this, Pennington went block-by-block and looked at new housing projects, as well as over a decades’ worth of eviction notices. 

  The relationship between the two was found to be “statistically indistinguishable from zero.” In other words, the “monthly probability of an eviction notice” does not change when new housing supply is completed nearby.

  Some have been critical of her findings and some have questioned whether legal eviction notices are, in fact, the right proxy for displacement.

  But I agree with Joe Cortright in that this still feels like a meaningful relationship to understand, especially when we’re talking about a tight housing market like San Francisco’s.

  Photo by Matthew Cabret on Unsplash

  2018.09.15

• Tridel unveils smart condominium in South Core

  

  A few weeks ago, Canadian developer Tridel unveiled its first “smart condominium” at Ten York – a recently completed 69 storey building in the South Core neighborhood of Toronto. Above is an archive photo of the building under construction. I chose this one because its siting between the Gardiner Expressway (left) and Harbour Street (right) is also noteworthy.

  Smart anything is one of those tech buzzwords that is, I know, starting to feel vapid. But Tridel has done some interesting things here with their Tridel Connect platform (a collaboration with SmartONE Solutions). And if you happen to also be in the business of designing and constructing multi-family buildings, I think you’ll find it to be a useful case study.

  At Ten York, you can now use your phone as a key fob. People buzzing up are shown to you on your wall pad so you can confirm identity. The suite entry doors use digital locks, which means you use an access code instead of a key. Additional codes can be created for family and friends or for service providers like dog walkers and cleaners. You’re also given a log of who has come and gone. And of course there’s an automated parcel delivery system.

  If you’d like to see all of the features in the live, I suggest you take a look at the “b-roll video” that was included as part of their press release. Tridel is excellent at implementing new technologies and I know that they frequently reserve test suites in their projects to try some of them out. This is a great thing for the industry and for consumers.

  Image: Tridel

  2018.09.09

• Limits of housing affordability

  

  The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an article called, “SF residential projects languish as rising costs force developers to cash out.” It talks about the impact that rising costs (both construction and other) are having on new housing supply. Some developers aren’t building even though may have entitled sites. And that’s because the math doesn’t work, even though we’re in a market with a severe housing shortage.

  Here is an excerpt from the article that talks about the kind of pricing that is needed in order to make a project work:

  Chris Foley, a real estate investor and partner in brokerage firm Polaris Pacific, said that in the current construction environment a condominium developer needs to sell units for at least $1,400 a square foot for a wood-frame building and $1,800 a square for a taller, steel-frame midrise or high-rise. Even in a city where more than 80 percent of the population is priced out of the market, those numbers are a stretch, Foley said.

  San Francisco also has inclusionary zoning, which requires a certain percentage of units in any new development to be priced below market. According to the article, it is 18% for new rental projects and 20% for new condo projects. That’s a cost that needs to be absorbed by the remaining market rate units – so price accordingly. 

  The MIRA tower designed by Studio Gang is currently under construction and has 156 affordable units and 393 market rate units. The market rate pricing looks something like this:

  That’s the case with three buildings rising near the new Transbay Transit Center: Mira, the Avery at 400 Folsom St., and One Steuart Lane, which overlooks the Embarcadero at the foot of Howard Street. Unless there is a remarkable drop in the market, units in all three of those buildings will probably have an average sales price of more than $2,000 a square foot and penthouses could fetch $3,000 or even $4,000 a square foot. A 3,326-square-foot penthouse at 181 Fremont St., which opened last spring, recently sold for $15 million, or $4,500 a square foot.

  Projects being squeezed by rising costs is something that we are also seeing here in Toronto. And I don’t believe that the general public fully appreciates that there are limits to the costs that can be shouldered by new development. And the reason for that is because there are limits to what people can afford to pay for new housing.

  Photo by Jamie Street on Unsplash

  2018.09.07

• How Singapore fixed its housing problem

  There are a number of affordable housing plans being thrown around in Toronto right now given that we have a municipal election coming up this fall. 

  From what I have read, the plans are largely centered around surplus and/or available public land and possibly some subsidies. 

  These subsidies are very important because the money has to come from somewhere. This is often overlooked.

  In light of these debates, I thought I would share a short Bloomberg video that my friend Evgeny shared with me this morning all the way from Tokyo.

  The video is about how Singapore fixed its housing problem. If you can’t see it embedded below, click here.

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjPgNBNeLU?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  It strikes me as being very Singaporean.

  2018.08.31

• The real reason people oppose new development

  

  A good friend of mine just sent me this fascinating research paper called: Opposition to Development or Opposition to Developers? Survey Evidence from Los Angeles County on Attitudes towards New Housing. It is a study out of UCLA that was published earlier this year by Paavo Monkkonen and Michael Manville.

  For the paper, they conducted a survey-framing experiment with over 1,300 people in Los Angeles County to test how strongly they felt about a number of common anti-housing sentiments; arguments such as traffic congestion, neighborhood character, and strain on local services. 

  However, they also introduced another argument: large developer profits. And interestingly enough, they discovered that respondents were 20 percentage points more likely to oppose a new hypothetical housing development when the survey was framed around the developer making a lot of money.

  Here is a table from the paper showing the various frames, as well as the percentage of people who supported, had no opinion, and who opposed. Note that under the “developer” frame, the opposition number is 48%.

  

  So their “takeaway for practice” is as follows: “Housing opposition is often framed as a form of risk aversion. Our findings, however, suggest that at least some opposition to housing might be motivated not by residents’ fears of their own losses, but resentment of others’ gains.”

  Photo by Cameron Stow on Unsplash
  

  2018.08.29