Tag: development

• Are there enough nerds in Miami?

  

  I was browsing through my online reading list this morning (as I do every morning), and I stumbled upon this Dezeen article talking about a big new 6.5 million square foot development being proposed in Miami’s Park West neighborhood. 

  The goal of the project is to transform Miami into “Florida’s Silicon Valley.”

  This sort of thing is happening all around the world. From Buffalo to Lisbon, cities everywhere are betting on tech, startups, and entrepreneurship to grow their economy in the 21st century. And I personally think that’s really exciting.

  But as I was reading the article, I couldn’t help but think of an old essay that Paul Graham wrote back in 2006 called, How to be Silicon Valley. (Paul Graham is a famous Silicon Valley entrepreneur/investor).

  In his essay Graham argues that to be or to replicate the model of Silicon Valley in your city, you basically need two types of people: rich people and nerds. The idea, of course, being that the nerds work on the cool new ideas and the rich people then fund them.

  Using this logic, he specifically calls out Miami as a city where few startups happen and as a city not likely to become another Silicon Valley. Though there’s lots of money and rich people in Miami, there simply aren’t enough nerds. In Graham’s words: “It’s not the kind of place nerds like.”

  But that was back in 2006. 

  The iPhone didn’t even exist yet. Things have since changed. Now there are successful tech companies like Snapchat (valuation north of $15 billion) that are based out of cities like Los Angeles. And I think you could argue that Los Angeles and Miami do share some similarities.

  So while it may have seemed far fetched in 2006 for Miami to become a startup hub, is that really the case today?

  Image: Dezeen

  2015.06.14

• The big challenge is suburban infill

  

  Thorncliffe Park Drive (TORONTO) by Jenver Rosales on 500px

  Between the 1950s and 1980s, Toronto built a lot of towers. A 2010 report by the Centre for Urban Growth and Renewal identified 1,925 rental apartment towers of 8 storeys or more across the Greater Toronto Area. 

  That’s the second largest inventory of apartment towers in North America – many or most of which are in car-oriented suburban neighborhoods.

  Of course, Toronto continues to build a lot of towers. But this second and current wave of towers is quite different than the last. Virtually all of them are now condo (as opposed to rental) and most are concentrated in central neighborhoods that are generally well-serviced by transit.

  This has created a lot of positives for the city. It brought more people into the core to live, which in turn brought more retailers and employers into the city. It has created what I believe is a more vibrant and exciting 24/7 city.

  But this return to city centers (as well as the economic spikiness it has created) is now well established both in Toronto, as well as in other cities all around the world. Every real estate conference or panel you go to now talks about Millennials and their desire to be in walkable communities. We got it.

  And relatively speaking, those kinds of communities aren’t that difficult to create when you’re infilling city centers. Certainly not at this point. The street grid and bones are usually all in place. And the urban form is often conducive to transit.

  The real challenge – and thus opportunity – for Toronto and lots of other cities is how to urbanize the (inner) suburbs and in particular these “towers in a park”. If you follow this space, you’ll know that there’s a lot more that we could be doing.

  How do we rethink their relationship to the rest of the city? How do we better connect them through transit? How do we plug them in economically? In my opinion, these are far more difficult tasks. But they’re important ones for the long-term success of our cities.

  2015.06.10

• 14 CityBuilders come together in support of removing the Gardiner East

  This will probably be my last Gardiner East post before the decision goes to City Council next week on June 10th. But I have such good news that I need to share it with you all.

  This morning 14 “CityBuilders” came together for the first time in support of removing the elevated Gardiner East and replacing it with a surface boulevard. They are real estate developers, investors, and other prominent business leaders in the city. And they sent a letter this morning to every single Toronto City Councillor outlining their position. 

  I can’t tell you how thrilled I am to see this happen, so I’d like to call out each and every member of the CityBuilders. They are (in alphabetical order):

  1. Castlepoint Numa
  2. Cityzen Development Corporation
  3. Context Development
  4. Continental Ventures
  5. Daniels Corporation
  6. Distillery Historical District
  7. Dream Unlimited Corporation
  8. Greybrook Capital and Greybrook Realty Partners
  9. Kerbel Group Inc.
  10. Manulife Real Estate
  11. QQE 162
  12. Streetcar Developments
  13. TAS
  14. Tridel Group of Corporations

  These are some of Toronto’s most important city builders and I am sure this will get the attention of both Mayor John Tory and the rest of City Council.

  If you haven’t yet signed the Gardiner East petition that Stephen and I started, please do so by clicking here.

  Happy Friday 🙂

  2015.06.05

• The missing middle will come, eventually

  Yesterday Lloyd Alter of Treehugger wrote a great rebuttal to my post about homes for families. His argument was that I missed a whole world of building typologies between single family homes and apartments. (Something that architect and urban planner Daniel Parolek calls “The Missing Middle”.)

  Now he’s absolutely right. I didn’t mention it – other than provide an option in the survey for townhomes. And he’s right that it’s a tremendous opportunity for cities looking to increase housing supply and improve affordability.

  But the reason I didn’t mention it in my survey is because, here in Toronto, we’re not very good at that middle scale.

  I previously wrote a post talking about Toronto’s 3 stages of intensification. It went from high-rise to mid-rise, and then to low-rise intensification. And my argument was that we’re still in and figuring out the mid-rise scale. (There are challenges at this scale, but that deserves a separate post.)

  Eventually though, I think we will get to low-rise intensification. And that will cover off many of the building typologies that Lloyd is talking about: duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and, my personal favorite, laneway houses.

  This, of course, isn’t the case in every city. Many cities, such as Montreal, have a strong history of neighborhood-scaled apartments. Lloyd points that out in his article. But that’s not the case here in Toronto.

  In fact, Toronto’s Official Plan explicitly designates these low-rise “Neighborhoods” as areas that are stable and should not see much intensification. And it was a great selling point for the Places to Grow Act: intensification here, but not there.

  But I think this will change. Not because I’m a real estate developer and I think it should change, but because our current arrangement is causing a dramatic erosion of affordability at the low-rise/ground-related housing scale.

  If it were up to me, and it most certainly is not, I would start with laneway housing. It’s a great way to intensify low-rise neighbourhoods without altering the character of the streets.

  If you live in a single family neighborhood, I would especially love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. 

  2015.06.03

• W57 — A new hybrid building typology

  

  We’ve been talking about a lot of heavy topics here on Architect This City lately. Everything from the contentious Gardiner Expressway East to minimum population densities to density creep. 

  So today I thought we could talk about something a bit more fun: architecture.

  When I was in New York last weekend, one of the buildings that was on my must-see list was the now under construction West 57th Street by Danish architect Bjarke Ingels. See photo above. (It also happens to be at the exact location where the West Side Highway transitions from elevated to surface boulevard.)

  This is supposedly the first North American project for Bjarke Ingels (he also has a project in Vancouver now). And if you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know that I’m a fan of his work. His diagrams and storytelling ability were a big inspiration for me when I was in architecture school.

  The concept behind the project was to create a new hybrid building typology, one that is a cross between the typical European perimeter block building and the North American skyscraper. And the result is pretty wild.

  Here’s a video in case you aren’t familiar with the project. Click here if you can’t see it below.

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0JbTbOm_iQ?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  I think it’s a really exciting project. What are your thoughts?

  2015.05.30

• Top 10 freeways without a future

  

  Sunset by liu han-lin on 500px

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

  Last year The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), which is based out of Chicago, published a report called, The 2014 Freeways Without Futures. It listed the top 10 freeways across North America that are in need of removal, replacement, and revitalization. You can download the full PDF report by clicking here.

  Here’s an introductory snippet from the report:

  The 2014 Freeways Without Futures Report lists the top opportunities in North America for replacing aging urban highways with boulevards or avenues that connect to the networks of streets. They are presented in no particular order of rank. As in previous reports, the criteria for the 2014 list is based on a number of factors: the age and design of structures, redevelopment potential, potential cost savings, ability to improve both overall mobility and local access, existence of pending infrastructure decisions, and community support.

  And here’s the list of freeways without a future:

  1.  I-10/Claiborne Overpass, New Orleans
  2.  I-81, Syracuse, New York
  3.  Gardiner Expressway, Toronto
  4.  Route 5/Skyway, Buffalo
  5.  Inner Loop, Rochester New York
  6.  I-70, St. Louis
  7.  I-280, San Francisco
  8.  I-375, Detroit
  9.  Terminal Island Freeway, Long Beach
  10.  Aetna Viaduct, Hartford

  Not surprisingly, the Gardiner Expressway is on the list. CNU is in agreement with the “remove” option currently being contemplated by Toronto City Council and will be doing their part to support the Gardiner East petition that Stephen and I created. Thank you for that 🙂

  2015.05.28

• The cost of saying “no”

  

  Texas suburb. by Ron Chapple on 500px

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

  When you rezone a property to build something new, pretty much every city will ask you to provide reports and studies that assess the potential impacts of that something new. 

  They’ll ask you to look at the impact on traffic, the impact on storm water, the impact on shadows in the area, and the list goes. This, of course, is fair and reasonable. It makes sense to measure the impact of the proposed changes to see if it will work in the given context. 

  But those are not the only impacts to consider. I think that many of us underestimate the flip side, which is the impact of doing nothing, or in this case, building nothing. Here’s a recent quote from an excellent interview with urban economist Edward Glaeser:

  Personally, I believe there are always huge costs to saying “no” to people who want to create space for new families that want to live in the city; who want to make the city more affordable. There are always costs – I believe that very, very strongly – but, sure, there are also benefits to saying “no” at certain times.

  Glaeser is, of course, not saying that we should allow unfettered development. He is saying that there are costs (or impacts) to building and costs to not building. The challenge is that we assume, often incorrectly, that saying “no” simply means the status quo will prevail. And we do not consider the impacts.

  So what does that mean? Here’s an example.

  The Neptis Foundation, which is a nonpartisan and charitable urban research group, just published an interesting report called, Growing Pains: Understanding the new reality of population and dwelling patterns in the Toronto and Vancouver regions. 

  What the report did was compare growth and settlement patterns in both the Greater Toronto (and Hamilton) Area and Metro Vancouver between 2001 and 2011. And what they found was two different stories.

  Of the one million people that moved to the Toronto region between this period, roughly 80% of them settled in new greenfield housing subdivisions at the urban edge. And only 18% of people moved to areas that were well serviced by public transit.

  By contrast, only 31% of Metro Vancouver’s population growth went to greenfield areas and 69% went to urban intensification areas. Nearly half of these new residents ended up settling next to high frequency transit.

  From an environmental standpoint, Vancouver’s settlement pattern is obviously preferable. But it takes hard work to achieve that. The barriers to infill development are more formidable than the barriers to greenfield development. This is despite the fact that there are well documented social, economic, and environmental costs associated with urban sprawl.

  My point with this example is that growth and demand will find somewhere to settle. Some locations make more sense than others, but sometimes there’s no choice when we have decided to say “no.” So what we ought to be doing is measuring both the impact of building, as well as the impact of not building.

  2015.05.27

• A few thoughts on Toronto’s rental resurgence

  

  Condos in Fog by Richard Gottardo on 500px

  Earlier today I attended a lunch and learn talking about the renewed interest in rental apartment development here in Toronto. Since this is a topic I’ve written about a few times here on Architect This City, I thought I would summarize some of my key takeaways from the panel discussion:

  • Market fundamentals are strong for purpose-built rental apartments. Vacancy is very low and demand will likely outstrip supply for many decades to come given the barriers to building (land availability, planning/approvals, and so on).
  • As of September 2014, CMHC reported 2,212 purpose-built rental units under construction in the Toronto region. And yet the annual demand for new rental housing is likely somewhere between 10,000 to 30,000 units (clearly some of this demand is being absorbed by condo rentals – the secondary rental market).
  • Millennials and retirees are seen as core markets for new rental apartments. Millennials want to live in urban centers and they like the flexibility that renting provides. Retirees want to know that they won’t be asked to move out because the owner wants to sell their condo unit.
  • It’s almost impossible to compete against condo developers when it comes to buying land (despite the next point). They (condo developers) will pay more. Therefore intensifying our “tower in a park” building stock is going to be a critical component of meeting rental demand in the region.
  • Part of what’s driving this interest in purpose-built rental (on the part of developers) is a softening condo market. So don’t be surprised when some developers flip back to condos when it makes financial sense to do so.

  It was interesting to hear this last point. It’s something that has been on my mind, but for whatever reason wasn’t really being talked about by the industry. That’s not to say that I think the condo market is in trouble though. It has just become more balanced. And ultimately that’s probably a good thing.

  Either way, I think that more rental and more housing options are a positive for the city and for consumers.

  2015.05.27

• #DensityCreep

  The Toronto Star published an article today called: Midtowners battle the rise of the midrise. It’s about a group called The Density Creep Neighborhood Alliance, which was formed in order to fight a 4 storey stacked townhouse project that is currently going through the rezoning process.

  Here’s a snippet from the article:

  “I’m really concerned about my property value going down,” says Lisa Goodwin, 49, a stay-at-home mother of two who has lived in a four-bedroom dwelling on Keewatin Ave. for 19 years. “Right now all the houses are $1.1 to, say, $2.2 (million) but they’re looking at putting in places that are only $500,000.”

  Not surprisingly, social media took hold of this and #DensityCreep quickly started trending on Twitter. BuzzFeed ran a piece called, Toronto Real Estate Is So Preposterous People Are Protesting Condos That “Only” Cost $500K. And somebody even bought densitycreep.com (their site is .ca) and redirected it to NIMBY on Wikipedia.

  There’s so much I could say about this. But you all already know what I’m thinking. So I’ll end with this quote from the article:

  “The simple fact of the matter is that the creation of a more sustainable, equitable, and affordable city requires the development of midrise and other more dense housing options along major roads, subways, and streetcar lines in already built up areas,” says Christopher De Sousa, director of the School of Urban Planning and Regional Planning at Ryerson University.

  We have work to do.

  2015.05.25

• Learning from boutique hotels

  At the beginning of this year, my friend Amy Bath wrote an interesting post on her blog comparing condos and boutique hotels. It’s called: Could condos be more like boutique hotels? It’s a great read and it touches on something that I think we will see more of going forward.

  The idea is that boutique hotels – many of which invest heavily in things like programming and “cultural engineering” – could serve as a model for condos and developers who want to further differentiate themselves by doing more with their common areas and amenities. I think it’s a great idea. 

  But let’s backup for a second.

  In many cases, I feel that developers tend to privilege the brands of their specific projects over their own corporate brands. This likely has something to do with the entrepreneurial nature of how development projects often come together, but I personally don’t think it’s the best approach.

  It’s the equivalent of a car company downplaying its own brand and instead creating a new one for each and every car model that it comes out with. That’s a lot of work and it’s harder to build brand equity that way. So I think the trend is probably away from this approach.

  But as that happens, developers will inevitably start to wonder how they can differentiate them themselves: How do I make my bricks and mortar less of a commodity? The same way that Apple made computers not about processor speeds and memory, but about something so much more. You create a brand story and an experience.

  And one of the best ways I think you could do that is through exactly what Amy is talking about: programming and cultural engineering.

  2015.05.21