Tag: development

• Fluted glass curtain wall

  New York architecture firm REX is working on a new office building in Washington DC that will incorporate a beautiful fluted glass facade. Here’s a rendering of what it is intended to look like:

  

  Here’s what that looks like in plan (it’s a GIF that should show typical curtain wall vs. proposed fluted glass):

  

  Here’s a photo of the 1:1 mockup:

  

  And here’s a description from the architect:

  The façade’s approximately nine hundred identical, insulated-glass panels—3.2 m tall by 1.5 m wide (11’-6” tall by 5’-0” wide)—are subtly curved to a 2.9 m (9’-6”) radius through a heat roller tempering process. The curve yields structural efficiency, which meets wind load requirements and enables a thinner monolithic outer lite than normal, providing greater transparency. 

  Because of the curve’s inherent rigidity in compression, only the top and bottom edges of the panels are supported from the floor slabs, while the mullionless vertical edges are flush-glazed for a minimalist aesthetic that improves sight lines, while gaining usable floor area.

  They are working in collaboration with Front Inc., which if you haven’t heard of, you should check out. They are a design/engineering consultancy that specializes in facades and building envelopes. They work with many of the big name starchitects. The developer of the project is Tishman Speyer.

  It’s worth noting that part of the impetus for the fluted glass facade was to try and innovate within the confines of DC’s draconian zoning – which mandates that no building can be taller than 130 feet. Because of this, developers and architects are usually forced to build out to the allowable area, leaving little room for architectural variation. 

  But in this case, the fluted glass removed the need for thick mullions and also allowed them to extend out beyond the lot area by 4 inches every 5 feet (the curves are considered “architectural features”). So this move has created both architectural variation and more rentable area.

  It doesn’t appear that the building will have any operable windows, but other than that, I think it promises to be quite beautiful. What do you think?

  All images from REX.

  2016.06.09

• The change order (ruminations on innovation)

  If any of you are in the
  business of creating – whether that’s a mobile app or a building – I’m sure
  you understand that the product or thing you’re working on will naturally
  evolve and change over time – probably in unexpected ways.

  In fact, I usually take this as a positive sign. When I have my
  head in a project and I’m focused on solving problems, ideas will naturally
  start to flow. I start thinking of things that I never would have thought
  about at the outset. That’s why I generally think of creativity as a process,
  rather than as some divine gift.

  But the challenge with all of this is that many of our existing business
  processes are not set up to deal with this kind of ambiguity. If anything we
  try and punish these sorts of deviations. If it wasn’t pre-meditated at the
  beginning of the project, we call it “scope creep” and charge extra for them as
  “change orders.” These two words equal death in construction.

  Now, don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the realities
  of running a business and the importance of managing scope and resources. It’s
  a balancing act. Without some structure, nothing would get done. 

  But the more that iterative
  lean methodologies and “design thinking” can be embedded into our processes,
  the more value creation I believe we will see.

  My thinking is as follows: At
  least part of the reason that innovation comes from startups and new market
  entrants is that the founders aren’t usually sitting around talking about defined
  scope and laying out elaborate business plans. They’re focused on creatively
  solving problems and doing whatever it takes to get there.

  It’s also one of the reasons
  that conventional wisdom dictates that tech startups shouldn’t outsource development.
  It’s too core a competency and you can’t “move
  fast and break things” if you don’t have that in-house and you’re constantly worried
  about eye-popping invoices hitting your desk.

  I have always seen lots of
  parallels between startups and architecture. In both of these worlds, the idea
  you start with is rarely what you end up with (at least that’s the case in
  architecture school). You research, learn, and iterate along the way and that
  leads you in new and unexpected ways.

  And in my view, that’s often what
  the path to innovation looks like. Because if you define the entire path at the
  outset, how can you expect to go anywhere new? And if you’re not going anywhere
  new, how can you expect to outperform the market?

  2016.06.08

• Rental apartment expansion in Detroit

  The Detroit Free Press recently published a summary of some of the new rental apartments coming online in and around downtown Detroit. Here’s the map that they published along with their piece:

  

  Based on this article, demand is outstripping new supply and rents are starting to push above $2 per square foot. This strikes me as a solid number given that there are also for sale lots/houses in the city going for $10,000.

  Going back to some of the posts I have written about rental apartment development in Toronto, you might remember that $3 psf is roughly our magic number given current cost structures.

  In some special circumstances you might be able to get a project off the ground with rents closer to $2 psf, but that’s an exception to the rule. There are many areas in the Toronto region with $2 psf rents and few, if any, new rental apartments.

  But Detroit is obviously a different city, as is every real estate market.

  Land would be cheaper. Many of these new rental apartments are conversions of existing buildings (which were probably bought for cents on the dollar). And I wouldn’t be surprised if there are tax abatements and other incentives to encourage more development. 

  I also wonder if people in the city aren’t being at least partially drawn to multi-family buildings because of the safety and security benefits. That’s something that certainly came up when I was in Detroit last weekend.

  Regardless, this is a good news story for Detroit, which is not always the story you hear people telling of the city.

  2016.06.05

• Event: Community Consultation for Mirvish Village

  

  One June 13, 2016 from 6:30 to 9:00 pm, the City of Toronto will be hosting a community consultation meeting for the proposed redevelopment of Honest Ed’s / Mirvish Village. 

  The meeting will be held at the Bickford Centre Auditorium at 777 Bloor Street West (across from Christie Pits Park).

  The purpose of the meeting is to present Westbank’s revised development proposal, which was submitted to the city last month. Their first proposal was submitted last summer (July 2015). 

  Some of the key changes include a new on-site public park, the retention of additional heritage buildings (now 21 in total), more pedestrian porosity, and the retention of Honest Ed’s alley in its current location.

  I consider Westbank to be one of the most thoughtful developers in the city and so I’m pretty excited to see this one evolve. I’m planning to attend the community meeting and maybe I’ll see you there.

  Below are a couple of other renderings to give you a taste.

  

  2016.06.02

• Towards car-free living

  Right now, there’s an apartment building in San Francisco that is trying to encourage car-free living by offering residents a $100 per month credit that can be used for Uber and/or for public transit. Prospective residents can even get a $20 credit to go check out the community. (The program is a partnership with Uber.)

  The reason this leasing strategy caught my attention is because we’re at a point where city builders are now trying to recalibrate themselves to this new emerging world. 

  When I was at the Land & Development conference earlier this month, one developer brought up this exact point. He more or less asked: If you’re starting development on a new building today and you’re expecting approvals in 2 or so years and completion in another 3 or 4 years, what do you think the state of cars/driving will be at that point? Should you really be building all that underground parking?

  These are great question. And they highlight one of the challenges of development. It takes a long time to bring new supply to the market and a lot can change during that time period. My sense is that we are pretty clearly seeing downward pressure on driving and car ownership.

  That said, this isn’t the case in every city or in all parts of a particular city. I just got back from a trip to a Detroit where it’s pretty hard to imagine the city being oriented around anything but the car. But in cities like San Francisco and Toronto, car-free living is already a reality for many people and so we need to respond to that.

  How do you see yourself driving, or not driving, in the next 5 to 10 years?

  2016.05.31

• The answer to San Francisco’s housing affordability problem

  Blogger and programmer Eric Fischer has an excellent post up on his site where he looks at: “Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments.” It’s worth a good solid read.

  What he did was dig deep into whatever data he could find – the data goes back to the beginning of the 20th century in some cases – to try and figure out a solution to San Francisco’s housing affordability problem.

  Many (including myself) have argued that, at least part of the solution, is to build more, not less, housing. However, others, such as Tim Redmond of 48 Hills, have argued that building more market-rate housing would simply exacerbate the current situation.

  

  In Eric’s analysis, he looked at everything from median rents and new housing units constructed (above graph) to annual wage growth and income inequality. I particularly liked his summary of the city’s various building booms. 

  In the end, here’s the conclusion that he came to:

  “In the long run, San Francisco’s CPI-adjusted average income is growing by 1.72% per year, and the number of employed people is growing by 0.326% per year, which together (if you believe the first model) will raise CPI-adjusted housing costs by 3.8% per year. Therefore, if price stability is the goal, the city and its citizens should try to increase the housing supply by an average of 1.5% per year (which is about 3.75 times the general rate since 1975, and with the current inventory would mean 5700 units per year). If visual stability is the goal instead, prices will probably continue to rise uncontrollably.”
  

  By visual stability, he is referring to maintaining the current urban fabric of San Francisco just the way it is. In other words, he is making the link between preservation and affordability in a prosperous and growing city.

  Intuitively, this makes sense to me. It’s unrealistic to think that you can maintaining some level of housing affordability without allowing supply to increase alongside demand.

  At the same time, I do not believe that preservation needs to equate to no changes whatsoever. Urban preservation, to me, should be about dutifully respecting the past while still looking firmly towards the future. And that’s how I believe successful should be approaching this problem.

  2016.05.31

• Empire and ego

  This morning I stumbled upon an old New York Times article from August 7, 1983 called: The Empire and Ego of Donald Trump.

  Here’s an excerpt you might find interesting:

  The essence of entrepreneurial capitalism, real estate is a business with a tradition of high-rolling megalomania, of master builders striving to erect monuments to their visions. It is also typically dynastic, with businesses being transmitted from fathers to sons and grandsons, and carried on by siblings. In New York, the names of Tishman, Lefrak, Rudin, Fisher, Zeckendorf come to mind.

  And now there is Trump, a name that has in the last few years become an internationally recognized symbol of New York City as mecca for the world’s super rich.

  “Not many sons have been able to escape their fathers,” said Donald Trump, the president of the Trump Organization, by way of interpreting his accomplishments. Three of them, built since 1976, stand out amidst the crowded midtown landscape: the 68- story Trump Tower, with its six-story Atrium housing some of the world’s most elegant stores; the 1,400- room Grand Hyatt Hotel, and Trump Plaza, a $125 million cooperative apartment. And more is on the way.

  “At 37, no one has done more than I in the last seven years,” Mr. Trump asserted.

  As I read this, 3 things came to mind.

  1) One could argue that, as real estate development institutionalizes, the megalomanic and dynastic nature of the business is being somewhat muted.

  2) I hope we are well beyond the point where a “dynasty” has to be transmitted only through men. We are, right?

  3) Trump sounded the same at 37.

  2016.05.21

• 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.

  2016.05.21

• What it takes to unlock infeasible development land (and some thoughts on parking)

  

  One of the questions that came up after my recent post about land pricing was: what is it going to take to develop underutilized land on the outskirts of city centers?

  So today I thought I would talk about a new development project that was also discussed at the Land & Development conference I recently attended. I think will begin to answer this question.

  The project today is known as the Rockport Weston Community Hub & Rental Building. And it’s going to include a community cultural hub, 26 live/work artist spaces, and 300 rental apartments. 

  It’s located in the Weston neighborhood of Toronto, which is designated as a “Neighborhood Improvement Area.” These are lower-income areas that the city considers to be “at-risk.”

  Given this, rents are naturally lower here than in other parts of the city, which means that it’s basically infeasible to develop here. There has been no large scale development in this community since the 1970s!

  To put some numbers to this, the developer said they were projecting rents somewhere around “two and a quarter.” So let’s assume for a second that the average apartment rents will be $2.25 per square foot. 

  At this rate, it means that a 600 square foot one-bedroom apartment will have a face rent of $1,350 per month. This may seem fairly high, but it almost certainly wouldn’t be enough to get a project like this off the ground under normal market conditions. At least, that’s the case here in Toronto with current cost structures.

  So what had to happen was a fairly complicated public-private partnership, which you can read all about here. But at a high level, there seems to have been 3 main economic factors that allowed this project to move forward:

  1) The developer was able to acquire the land for cents on the dollar. As I said in this post, land is expensive. So this helps a lot.

  2) The developer was able to make use of extra parking in an adjacent building. Assuming that underground parking could cost around $50,000 per stall, this is a huge cost savings.

  3) Lastly, the project is benefiting from the public invest made in the airport rail link that now quickly connects this site to both Pearson International and downtown Toronto.

  The moral of the story is that infeasible sites require some sort of subsidy or top up to make them work. Or, there needs to be an exceptional circumstance. Because if the rents aren’t there, nobody is going to build. It’s as simple as that.

  That said, here’s one idea…

  This discussion reminds me of a post I wrote a while back called, The hypocrisy of parking minimums. Frankly, I don’t understand why a city like Toronto still has parking minimums. If anything, we should have parking maximums.

  Underground parking is a huge cost that has to get carried by purchasers and renters in a new building. For example, let’s assume that 300 apartment suites would require 180 parking stalls (ratio = 0.6). Assuming $50,000 per stall, that’s a $9 million cost.

  So the second takeaway is that it’s probably time we took a good hard look at how we think about and plan for parking in our cities. Especially since the entire mobility space is being quickly disrupted.

  Image: Rockport

  2016.05.12

• It sold for what?

  Today I spent the day at the Land & Development conference here in Toronto. If there was one running theme throughout the day, it was: “Holy shit, I can’t believe that X piece of land sold for $Y million. How will they (the developer) ever make the numbers work?”

  Outside of the real estate development community, there’s often the perception that developers are building everywhere and that there’s lots of land left in cities, like Toronto. When you see all the cranes in the skyline, it naturally seems like we’re building a lot. Things seem easy.

  But the reality is that it’s extremely difficult to find “land” in markets like Toronto and Vancouver. And by “land”, I mean properties that can be feasibly acquired/assembled, entitled, developed, and then brought to market. The way the speakers today spoke about land it’s as if it were a rare precious commodity.

  I say all this, not to complain about how tough things are, but simply to shed light on the process. A developer’s job is to take a piece of property and figure out a way to create additional value. But to do that, they need to find a suitable piece of real estate. “Land” is an input.

  This has implications for consumers, because inputs turn into outputs. And if one of the inputs is becoming scarcer, then it’s pretty safe to assume that the outputs, such as new housing, are also becoming scarcer.

  2016.05.11