Tag: development

• Building height fallacy

  Studio Gang has a project currently under construction in New York City called 40 Tenth Avenue. It is also known as the “solar carve tower.” Here are a couple of progress photos taken by Timothy Schenck. The glass is beautiful. (If you can’t see the embedded tweet below, click here.)

  Status update from the construction site of 40 Tenth Avenue, our first tower in New York. It’s been exciting watching its progression, especially as the glass is installed on the building’s carved-away form, which is sculpted by the angles of the sun. Photos: @timothyschenck pic.twitter.com/Ks7RqUXEcB

  — Studio Gang (@studiogang)

  August 13, 2018

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  This is one of my favorite buildings by Studio Gang and one that we all studied when we were kicking off One Delisle. 

  The geometry of the building is a result of carve outs that maximize the amount of sunlight that is able to reach the adjacent High Line (public space). It is form driven by functional logic. Here is a diagram from Studio Gang showing the carve outs that result from the sun’s rays.

  

  The other thing I like about this project is that it is a clear proof of something that I’m going to call the “building height fallacy.” There can be a tendency to overfocus on building height, which I have argued against before on this blog. 

  In this case, a shorter and squatter building without these solar carve outs, would have actually been worse for the High Line and the surrounding environment in terms of access to light and air.

  The building is responding to site-specific criteria – which is what great architecture should do.

  2018.08.13

• The biggest challenge in revitalizing the Rust Belt

  

  Jason Segedy, who is the Director of Planning and Urban Development for the city of Akron, Ohio, recently penned a two-part series in the American Conservative about urban revitalization in the Rust Belt. Part two is specifically about the importance of new housing in “cities left for dead.”

  As I was reading through the piece, my first thought was that it would be a good follow-up to yesterday’s post on “winner-take-all-urbanism.” The contrast between alpha cities like San Francisco and Rust Belt cities like Akron is stark.

  The former city can’t build housing fast enough. And the latter city was forced to implement a citywide, 15 year, 100% residential property tax abatement program just to induce new investment. Any and all new housing is eligible.

  But as I got further down the article, I was struck by something else. I was surprised to hear Segedy say that, rather than market forces, community opposition is “perhaps the biggest challenge of all” when it comes to delivering new housing in these markets.

  Here is a longish excerpt that I would encourage you to read:

  Although you might think that people living in neighborhoods with a large number of abandoned houses and vacant lots would be thrilled to see new houses being built, you might be surprised to learn how often this is not the case. Sometimes neighbors prefer to have the vacant lot remain as green space. Sometimes they worry that the new housing will not be expensive enough, and will bring their property values down. Other times, they worry that the new housing will be too expensive, and will bring their property values (and taxes) up.

  When it comes to new housing, everyone is a critic. I have heard people complain that housing which they will never live in is too dense; that housing which they will never purchase is too expensive; that housing which they will never be inconvenienced by will generate too much traffic; and that housing which they will never look at is not architecturally appealing.

  After 23 years as an urban planner, I can honestly report to you that, contrary to popular belief, most people are strongly in favor of heavy-handed and draconian government regulation of private property—as long as it is someone else’s private property, and not their own.

  Residents and community activists who are opposed to new housing often demonize the real estate development profession as being “greedy”, overlooking the fact that their own home was developed by a developer, built by a builder, and sold by a realtor—most likely for a profit. This isn’t to argue that every development professional is a white knight, but it is important to remember that the vast majority of people who work in the real estate and construction sectors are not the enemy of neighborhoods. Without them, there would be no neighborhoods.

  According to Segedy, Akron has lost 32% of its peak population. Cleveland has lost 58%. And Detroit has lost 64%, leaving almost 1/3 of its land parcels vacant. (These are 2017 figures.) Surprisingly, this doesn’t appear to change how many people feel about new development. 

  No more new housing. We’re full. Unless, of course, that housing is for me.

  Photo by Nolan Issac on Unsplash

  2018.08.11

• The vertical city

  We often talk about agglomeration economies in terms of their horizontal clustering within cities. But a new paper in the Journal of Urban Economics – summarized here by Richard Florida – has looked at the other dimension: the vertical clustering of economic activity within tall buildings. 

  Here is an excerpt from Florida’s piece in CityLab:

  Economic activity is also sorted vertically, with higher-profile and more profitable firms occupying higher building floors. Law offices are disproportionately represented on the highest floors, taking up more than a third of floor space above the 40th floor, compared to 12 percent of floor space between the second and 40th floors. Finance, insurance, and real estate take up roughly 20 percent of floor space above the 40th floor, compared to 23 percent between the second and 40th floors. Business services, engineering, and miscellaneous other industries are also more likely to take up more space below the 40th floor.

  The other takeaway is that there appears to be a greater rent premium attached to higher floors (vertical movement) than for being located closer to the central business district (horizontal movement). This surprised me. But I also don’t have access to the full paper. Is the dataset just US cities?

  Nevertheless, the idea of a vertical city interests me a lot. And I agree with the authors of the report that, for perhaps obvious reasons, it is far less studied compared to horizontal development patterns.

  2018.07.25

• The blue (real estate) bible

  Back when I was in grad school studying real estate, we used to refer to the below book as the “blue bible.” It is a comprehensive look at real estate finance and investments, and also development. But perhaps more importantly, it is written in a way that is clear, direct, and immensely practical to the actual world of real estate.

  

  The reason I mention this today is because the fifth edition is out and my friend Bruce Kirsch is now an author, along with Peter Linneman. Thankfully the cover is still blue, otherwise I might be a little sad and this post wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

  Bruce has an MBA in Real Estate from Wharton (at Penn) and is the founder and CEO of Real Estate Financial Modeling, LLC, which I recommend to absolutely everyone who wants to get better at financial modeling and deal underwriting.

  I have a lot of people who reach out to me on a regular basis and want to ask me about getting into real estate, and in particular, development. I try my best to make time because I was once in their shoes. Usually that means an early morning coffee in Toronto’s PATH.

  My advice is fairly consistent. You have two options. Try and get your foot in the door at a shop or, if you’ve got the gall, go out and try and do it on your own. I have friends who have successfully done the latter with very little in the way of formal real estate training.

  Whatever your decision, knowledge of the industry will obviously serve you well. Oftentimes I’m meeting with design and/or planning professionals who bring a lot to the table, but usually lack the finance and investments knowledge. That’s when I remind them of my story: Don’t screw up the numbers.

  This is also when I suggest taking one of Bruce’s classes. I’ve taken a number of them. Because to learn how to model something in Excel you have to understand how it actually works and Bruce helps you do exactly that. Garbage in, garbage out. That’s how models work.

  But the other thing one should consider doing is picking up a copy of the blue bible. I have a copy sitting on my desk right now and will tell you that it’s a “must read”, whether you’re a designer and just want to learn more about the other side of the business, or you’re an experienced real estate professional.

  For more on the book, click here and then on Textbook at the top. Oh, and Bruce, congratulations on the new book!

  2018.07.22

• Learning about O-zones

  I spent this evening reading about Opportunity Zones, or “O-zones”, in the United States. 

  For a census tract to become an O-zone, it has to have a poverty rate of 20% or higher, or the median household income has to be less than 80% of the surrounding area. Governors are also only able to designate 25% of their eligible census tracts.

  Here is a map of the areas that have been designated as Opportunity Zones.

  

  Here is how these O-zones work. (All excerpts taken from this Forbes article.)

  The law’s engine is a new breed of financial product, the opportunity fund, that offers investors a trifecta of attractive tax breaks. Here’s how it works. Investors who sell assets have 180 days to plow their taxable capital gains into an approved opportunity fund, which must hold 90% of its assets in Opportunity Zone projects. To put money to work fast, the law requires that the funds invest all of their cash within some specified time frame. (The Treasury Department is still deciding on that and other crucial details.) Tax on the original reinvested gain isn’t due until 2026, and the taxable gain is cut by 15%. Meanwhile the new opportunity investment grows tax-free, like a Roth IRA, provided it’s held for at least ten years. (If it’s sold earlier, it can be rolled into another opportunity fund and remain tax-free.)

  Here is how it could get the real estate industry to take action.

  For real estate developers, O-zones offer cheap real estate and unlimited, untaxed upside if a neighborhood takes off. Developers must do more than stash cash in crumbling property. To qualify for tax perks, they must make swift and significant upgrades (at least equal to the cost of the initial purchase). With real estate projects come new office buildings, industrial districts, restaurants and affordable housing—all of which can lay the groundwork for an economic boom. “The real estate aspect is a great catalyst to attract new businesses,” says AOL founder Steve Case, an early supporter of the O-zone initiative, whose Rise of the Rest Fund invests in backwater areas. “But it’s the startups that will be the real job creators.”

  And here is how it could influence where new businesses decide to locate.

  “If Facebook could have chosen to locate itself in an Opportunity Zone, like the Tenderloin in San Francisco, the investors would’ve paid no capital gains on their equity,” says Parker, who presumably would have been one of the big winners. The promise of mega-returns could send VCs, investment banks and private equity firms scrambling to launch their own opportunity funds to create incubators, scour second cities for overlooked talent or move portfolio companies into O-zones. “It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of Silicon Valley VCs started to tell founders, ‘We’d like you to go over the bridge to Oakland, or we’d like you to go to Stockton,’” Parker says.

  If you’d like to learn more about Opportunity Zones, check out the Forbes article.

  2018.07.20

• Condo rents in Toronto are up 11.2% from last year

  Yesterday Urbanation released its Q2-2018 rental report for the Greater Toronto Area. It tracks both purpose-built rentals and condominium rentals, the latter being condominium units that are listed for rent on MLS. The average condo rent, for all unit types across the GTA, is up 11.2% year-over-year to a face rent of $2,302 per month.

  Here is a chart from the Globe and Mail:

  

  The former City of Toronto, which includes downtown, is actually up 13.5%:

  

  But here are the stats that I really wanted to draw your attention to today (figures from the Globe).

  According to Urbanation, there were some 384,000 condo apartments in the Greater Toronto Area in 2017 and nearly 1/3 of them were rented out. Given that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation pegs the total number of rental apartments in the GTA at approximately 311,596, condo apartments represent about 40% of all our rental housing stock.

  So condo buildings are actually doing quite a bit of heavy lifting when it comes to providing rental housing in this region.

  2018.07.14

• Why Millennial homeownership is so low

  The Urban Institute has a new study out that looks to explain why Millennial homeownership rates are lower than that of previous generations. The typical refrain is that Millennials have a lot more student debt and that the cost of housing in urban centers has risen faster than income levels. But this report tries to put some math behind those explanations. All data is for the US.

  

  Not surprisingly, marriage and kids are significant drivers, and Millennials appear to be delaying both. According to the study, being married increases the probability of owning a home by 18%. If marriage rates in 2015 were the same as they were in 1990 (this is the time period for the study), the Millennial homeownership rate would be 5% higher. Having a kid increases the probability by about 6.2%.

  There’s also a widening spread between the homeownership rates for more educated and less educated Millennials. Presumably the distinction is a 4 year university degree. Between 1990 and 2015, the spread between the two groups increased from 3.3% to 9.7%. This was identified as an area of “great concern” because of the possible long term implications.

  Combine this phenomenon with the stats that white households have a higher homeownership rate compared to all other racial groups and that having parents who are homeowners increases the likelihood of also owning a home (let’s ignore, for a second, the other intergenerational transfers of wealth), and you have a recipe for rising wealth disparities.

  Of course, some of you will undoubtedly argue that in this part of the world we are overly fixated on homeownership as a mechanism for wealth creation. I mean, there are many examples of very wealthy countries with homeownership rates that are far less than what they are here in Canada and the US. But that’s a discussion for a different blog post.

  If you’d like to go through the full Millennial Homeownership report, you can do that here.

  2018.07.13

• How large metro areas are driving the global economy

  “The concentration of economic growth and prosperity in large metro areas defines the modern global economy, creating both opportunities and challenges in an era in which national political, economic, and societal trends are increasingly influenced by subnational dynamics.” -Brookings Institute

  The Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institute has a new report out for 2018 called the Global Metro Monitor.

  Here are some of the highlights (data is from 2014 to 2016):

  – The 300 largest metro areas in the world accounted for 36% of employment growth and 67% of GDP growth.

  – Metro areas in China and the Asia-Pacific region outperformed, whereas Latin American cities, and in particular the largest Brazilian cities, were weaker performers.

  – The majority of large metro areas had growth rates that exceeded that of their respective regions. So again, cities are the driver.

  And here is an interesting interactive chart (better to click through) that shows the % change in GDP per capita. 

  

  Look at how much of an outlier San Jose is. Though, check out Dublin in the footnote. And if you look at the actual data table, it is all China, except for Dublin at the top.

  

  For the rest of the charts, click here. And to download the full Global Metro Monitor report, click here.

  2018.07.08

• Studio Gang’s first project in Canada

  

  This evening Slate Asset Management hosted the community meeting that I’ve been writing about on the blog over the last little while. 

  And at this open house Jeanne Gang of Studio Gang introduced a new block plan and mixed-use building at the southwest corner of Yonge Street and Delisle Avenue in midtown Toronto.

  I think it went really well. We had over 200 people RSVP, but based on my imprecise head count, over 300 people actually showed up. 

  I would tell you more right now, but it’s very late. So I’m going to instead leave you with this article by Alex Bozikovic, titled, Studio Gang’s new Toronto tower follows the right recipe: tall, innovative and excellent.

  2018.07.06

• Letter from Toronto on Google’s city of the future

  Politico Magazine recently published this article about Sidewalk Toronto. It’s called: Google Is Building a City of the Future in Toronto. Would Anyone Want to Live There? 

  If you’re familiar with what Sidewalk Toronto is up to, the first bit will likely cover things you already know. But later on it gets into an interesting discussion around data privacy, among other things.

  One argument is that if you strip any personal identifiers from the data you collect, then you’ve effectively eliminated the issue of privacy. 

  But what about “collective privacy?” 

  What if you could, for example, identity signs of concentrated drug usage within certain districts, communities, or even buildings? Does that start to get a little too personal?

  This is the great debate surrounding Quayside, the area that Sidewalk is focused on. The article also touches on what Quayside could mean for the future of Toronto.

  Just about all players involved believe that if Sidewalk can be successful at Quayside, it has a shot at the adjoining 800-acre Port Lands, a swath of problem space big enough to become home to a dozen new neighborhoods in a growing metropolis. Townsend, the consultant, says of the Port Lands: “That’s a city they’re going to build there. This is just the warmup, this little piece.”

  Full article, here. There’s also an audio version in case that’s your preferred consumption method. It’s about 40 minutes long if you do it that way (and don’t speed it up).

  2018.07.05