Tag: development

• To connect rather than isolate

  

  When I was
  a kid growing up in the suburbs of Toronto, I never played in the backyard. I
  played in the streets. That’s where all the kids came together.

  We would
  play baseball in somebody’s driveway, using one of the garage door “squares” as
  the strike zone. We would play football on corner lots, where it was tackle on
  the grass and “two-hand touch” on the street. And we would wax our curbs so
  that we could skateboard them.

  None of these
  spaces were ever really intended for baseball, football, or skateboarding, but
  we kids repurposed them.

  As people,
  including families, continue to move into urban centers around the world, I
  have no doubt that the next generation of children will once again repurpose
  spaces for play. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have work to do when it
  comes to properly preparing our communities for people of all shapes and sizes.

  One of the
  most interesting design challenges facing us today has to do with our towers.

  Architects
  have long been obsessed with the idea of vertical villages. Le Corbusier’s Unité
  d’habitation in Marseille had two shopping streets embedded within the tower
  that were intended to act as public spines. I don’t know how well they did, but
  it was a highly progressive idea for the time.

  Following
  on this idea, I was recently watching a
  TED talk with architect Ole Scheeren (thanks Mariane) and I was fascinated
  by his obsession with breaking down the raw verticality of towers.

  His belief
  was that, yes, cities are and will continue to become more dense through tall
  buildings, but that most towers isolate rather than connect people. His work strives to do the opposite.

  And this
  one of the big trends that I think we will see more of in our cites. We will see
  new forms of urban connectedness and a blurring of private, public, and
  semi-public spaces. Screw Euclidean zoning.

  On that
  note, I am reminded that I owe the ATC community a post on my predictions for
  2016. I hope to get that out shortly.

  Diagram via Büro Ole Scheeren

  2016.01.22

• Share your big idea for Canada’s #Capital2067

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  On Thursday night I spoke at an Urbanism Lab event in Ottawa put on by the National Capital Commission.

  The event was all about the interconnection between the online world of blogging and social media, and the offline world of tangible city building.

  More specifically, one of the goals was to help inspire institutions, such as the National Capital Commission, to better leverage these new channels in order to get their message out.

  Social media and blogging may be ubiquitous, but lots of organizations are still getting their heads around it.

  So today I thought I would do my part and share something with all of you that, truthfully, I didn’t know was underway until I visited Ottawa.

  But first, how many of you (Canadians) are exactly aware of what the National Capital Commission does?

  The NCC is a federal Crown corporation that is focused on 3 specific mandates:

  1. They are the long-term urban planner of federal lands in Canada’s Capital Region. They are also the largest landowner in the region.
  2. They are the principal steward of nationally significant public spaces and buildings, including the Capital’s six “official residences.” Residences such as 24 Sussex Drive.
  3. And they are a “creative partner” on initiatives that tie into both development and conservation.

  To this end, the NCC is now working on a Plan for Canada’s Capital, 2017-2067. This is a 50-year plan that will outline what they do with federal lands, buildings, parks and other symbolic spaces in the Capital. And it will identity which projects would best craft and represent our national identity, as well as strengthen Canada’s influence in the world.

  This is all pretty important and interesting stuff. But unfortunately I didn’t know it was underway. And I also didn’t know what they were looking for “big ideas” from Canadians. These are ideas that will directly shape the 50-year plan.

  So if you have an idea – big or small – for the National Capital Commission, I would encourage you to click here and share it with them. Not only is this city building in the Capital, it’s also nation building.

  Please also feel free to copy and paste your idea(s) in the comment section of this post. These ideas definitely deserve a fulsome discussion. I will post mine once I write it.

  2016.01.17

• Additional thoughts on land prices

  Daniel Hertz over at City Observatory just published a post talking about why land costs are so important when it comes to home prices. More specifically though, his post is intended to refute a claim that multifamily housing is always going to be more expensive than single family housing.

  The key concept here – which is critical to understanding urban real estate economics – is that home values are essentially made up of two things: the land and the improvements (i.e. the building). 

  When home prices rapidly appreciate, as has been the case in cities like Vancouver (see below) and Toronto, it’s not the building, but the land that’s really driving the price up. 

  And as you can see from the chart below (which Daniel shared in his post), it is possible for multifamily housing to be less expensive than single family housing. 

  

  So why was someone arguing that multifamily housing is more expensive?

  Well if you look at just construction costs, then this is generally true. Single family housing is typically wood frame construction, whereas multifamily housing is usually reinforced concrete or some other material that allows you to build up. In these latter cases, the price per square foot to build is going to be higher.

  But Daniel’s argument is that when you build multifamily housing, you also begin to amortize the cost of the land over more housing units. So you begin to use land more efficiently and that offsets the higher construction costs.

  However, two thoughts come to mind.

  First, the value of a piece of land is entirely dependent on what you can build on it. And the more you can build on it, the more the land is worth. So as densities increase, so do land prices.

  Second, a big part of why condominiums are so much more affordable is that they’re smaller. In 2014, the average condo size in Metro Vancouver was estimated to be 840 square feet. I couldn’t find the average size of a detached house in the city, but let’s assume for a second that it’s 2,500 sf. 

  If that were the case, then a detached house, despite being more expensive overall, would still be cheaper on a per square foot basis. You would be paying less for every square foot of livable space. True that doesn’t make the house more affordable, but I think it’s a bit unfair to compare apples (small condo) to oranges (large house).

  So what I would really like to see is a graph of all-in low-rise and high-rise per square foot prices over time and for various cities. Because I would be curious to see at what point – if ever – they intersect.

  2016.01.14

• Urbanism Online: #capital

  

  For those
  of you from Ottawa, I’m going to be in town this Thursday evening talking
  at an event put on by the National Capital Commission called Urbanism
  Online. It’s all about how blogging, social media, and online discussions can
  and are contributing to the betterment of cities.

  The other
  bloggers include:

  – Marc-André Carignan, Montreal, Kollectif.net

  – Jillian Glover, Vancouver, This City Life

  – Robert Smythe, Ottawa, UrbSite

  The event is
  now full, but email them or tweet me if you’d really like to come
  and I’ll certainly ask about space availability. I’m sure it’s going to be a great discussion.

  I have a bit of a soft spot for Ottawa. I used to spend a lot of time there when I was working on an office building at 150 Elgin Street. (Key tenants include The Canada Council for the Arts, KPMG, and Shopify.)

  I haven’t been back since the building was completed, so I’m excited to see how it turned out.

  Update: The event will also be streamed on Periscope, here.

  2016.01.11

• Urban infill case study: 1234 Howard Street in San Francisco

  Urban infill developments can be tough. The sites are often small and/or narrow and that creates a lot of design challenges. Access to light is a common problem.

  But constraints can also be beautiful, because they have a way of forcing creativity. 

  When I was in architecture school, I used to find it easier to work when I was given constraints and challenges. It gave me something to latch onto, as opposed to just starting with a blank canvas. A big part of design, at least for me, is about solving problems. So give me a problem to solve!

  One of the ways that architects and designers often deal with the access to light problem is by carving out lightwells or courtyards to bring light down into the building. This can be used when you have a deep site or when you’re building right up against the property line and you can’t have any windows.

  One project that I’ve always liked for this reason – as well as the fact that it’s beautifully designed – is 1234 Howard Street in San Francisco. It looks like this from above:

  

  The site is 50′ x 165′ and it spans an entire block. 

  In order to get lots of light into all of the units, the architects (Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects) split the site up into 3 “bars”, each of which would be somewhere around 16′ x 165′. The middle “bar” was then dedicated to a courtyard that cuts through the entire building.

  

  The two flanking bars were then further subdivided into 2 units per bar, which translates into 4 units per floor x 4 floors. The ground floor is just common areas and parking.

  The advantage of this design strategy is that the apartments now have windows running the length of the courtyard, where as typically on narrow deep lots you would end up with “bowling alley” units and windows just on one end.

  The disadvantage of this design strategy is that you’re now just over 16′ away from seeing what your neighbor is eating for dinner, among other things. 

  But with the right window coverings, I’m sure we’d all survive in these apartments with their Bulthaup kitchens and Miele appliances.

  

  I love seeing creative solutions to tight urban sites. And one of the things that I worry about, with things like the Mid-Rise Performance Standards here in Toronto, is that we’re reducing or even eliminating the possibility for these kinds of creative solutions.

  I recognize that 1234 Howard is not the same as an avenue mid-rise site in Toronto with low-rise residential behind it. But the thought still crossed my mind as I was writing this piece.

  All photos via Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects Inc.

  2016.01.08

• What do you think of parking stackers?

  One of the things that’s becoming a lot more common in Toronto is parking stackers. For small infill sites there’s simply no other way to fit in the parking. You can’t lay out a traditional parking garage.

  But while it’s still relatively new for Toronto, I think many of you would be surprised by how many projects there are in the pipeline right now that plan to use parking stackers. In the next 5 to 10 years, they are going to be quite common.

  Some of you might be wondering how they work. There are a bunch of different solutions, from stackers to elevators and palettes, but here’s an example of a triple car stacker:

  

  In this case, there’s a below grade pit and an open space that goes up into the second floor. This way each car remains accessible without having to move any of the others. If you want the car on the top shelf, just lower the other 2 into the pit. If you want want the car on the bottom shelf, just raise the other 2 into the second floor space (which is what’s shown above).

  But here’s what I’m really curious about: How do you feel about parking stackers? Would you live an apartment or condo where that was how you had to park your car? Or would it be a deal breaker? Please let us know in the comment section below.

  2016.01.06

• 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.

  2015.12.29

• More than just a coffee shop

  

  Today’s blog post is coming to you live from Quantum Coffee at the corner of King and Spadina in Toronto.

  I’m sitting by the window (where I keep running into friends) in a beautiful space that used to be an ugly youth hostel. Nice work Reflect Architecture and MAAST. 

  It’s my first time at Quantum, but I am so intrigued by all that is happening here that I feel compelled to share.

  So Quantum is a coffee shop. The americano I had this morning was quite good. I hope to have another one sometime in the future. But there’s more to this story. 

  Quantum is actually just one leg of something bigger. Attached to it – literally upstairs – is something called BrainStation. And across the street from it is something called The Konrad Group.

  The Konrad Group is a digital agency that does everything from brand strategy to mobile development. BrainStation teaches those same skills to other people via in-person courses in this recently renewed heritage space. And Quantum is the stimulant that helps fuel it all.

  The connective tissue between these 3 businesses, which are all basically owned by the same poeple, is something that I find super fascinating.

  It also feels like the intersection of design, technology, and space (real estate). And as many of you know, that’s what I’m all about.

  2015.12.28

• I’m writing a book on becoming a real estate developer

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  One of the most common questions I get from readers of this blog is: How do I become / get into real estate development?

  In fact, I get it so often that I’ve decided to write a book as my response. It may be a short one or it may end up a long one. If you’ve emailed or messaged me with this question and I haven’t responded, I’m sorry. There’s a lot of you out there. But I do want to help and that’s why I’ve decided to take on this hobby book project.

  As part of the book, I’ll be talking about my own journey, as well as the actual nuts and bolts of development. But I would also like to feature some much more established players in the business. In order to do that, I’ve decided to crowdsource some of the content for this book. 

  So here’s my ask to you: If you’re a real estate developer and would like to share your story, please complete this short questionnaire. You can be located anywhere in the world.

  My plan is to select a handful of developers from around the world and then feature their stories, one-by-one. I’m confident that there will be a lot of interest in hearing how successful developers established their careers and/or own businesses.

  I’ve been thinking about doing this for quite awhile now. It feels good to get started. 

  2015.12.19

• The highs and lows of mid-rise

  Last week
  was developer Urban Capital’s 5th annual “Naughty or Nice” party. It’s obviously a holiday tradition of theirs and it has become a tradition of mine to attend. Judging by my vast collection of photo booth photos, there’s a chance I may have been to all of them. It’s easily one of the best holiday parties in the business.

  One of the things that Urban Capital does at its annual party is release its annual magazine. And this year I was fortunate enough to be invited to write a piece for it on the highs and lows of mid-rise development. Put differently, it’s about the challenges facing developers who want to build mid-rise, but also why they’re pretty great for cities.

  

  If you’d like to have a read, you can do that online by clicking here. And if you’d like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, I can make that happen as well. Tweet at me. Alternatively, you can also pick up the magazine at any Urban Capital sales office.

  I deliberately tried to make it so it wasn’t your typical real estate puff piece: condos are great, yada, yada, you should buy one from us. I tried to make it an intelligent piece on some of the real challenges facing mid-rise developers. And that’s what Urban Capital wanted as well. I hope you enjoy it 🙂

  2015.12.17