Tag: development

• The first 100 people

  

  This past weekend was a milestone weekend for Architect This City. The number of email subscribers surpassed 100 people for the first time. Now, that may not seem like a lot of people, but I think it is. I’m incredibly proud of and grateful for each and every one of you who subscribe to ATC. If I had all of your photos, I would make a collage just like the one above and call it “the first 100.”

  The reason I think 100 people is a lot is because I think of an email inbox as an incredibly personal thing. We live in an age of too much information and our inboxes certainly reflect that. So for somebody to invite and accept the ATC email into their inbox every morning (only a few people subscribe weekly), I consider that to be a big deal. Thank you for that. It really does mean a lot to me.

  I try to ensure that I’m always delivering value to you, which is why I ask for your industry on the full subscription page. I want to know where you’re coming from so that I can do my best to write content that will help you professionally, and perhaps even in life. But if you signed up elsewhere, you may have only entered your email. If you’d like to add your industry, click on “update subscription preferences” at the bottom of one of my emails.

  So far, I know that many of you are architects, city planners, real estate developers, brokers, policy makers, finance people, marketers, and entrepreneurs–to name only a few.

  If you have any specific feedback or have a topic you’d like to see covered on ATC, please feel free to email me or reply to this email (if you’re already a subscriber). I keep a queue of draft posts and I do eventually get to them when the timing is right. Finally, if you feel that somebody within your network would also get value out of what we’re all doing here at ATC, I would really appreciate it if you forwarded this email or shared this post.

  Happy Monday 🙂

  Image: Flickr

  2014.05.26

• Looking east

  There’s a fairly real divide between east and west here in Toronto. When people talk about real estate or describe the kind of person they are, they often say things like: “I’m an east end kind of person” or “I only want to buy on the west side.” There’s such a split that somebody recently said in a meeting I was in that the east vs. west real estate divide is like Christianity vs. Judaism. 

  Historically, the west has generally been considered more desirable than the east–regardless of what scale you’re looking at. Downtown west vs. downtown east, Etobicoke vs. Scarborough, and so on. And for whatever reason, this seems to be the case in a lot cities I’ve been to. Consider Montreal, Vancouver, New York, and London, to name a few. 

  But lately, I’ve been noticing a growing acceptance of the east side. Friends are telling me that, even though they don’t know the east all that well, they’re almost agnostic to which side they buy a home on.

  At the same time, we’re seeing Toronto’s development boom spread to the east along streets like Church and Jarvis; paralleling the kind of intensification we’ve already seen on the west along Bay Street, University Avenue and further. I’m also noticing a lot of west end restauranteurs open up on the east side. See Carbon Bar and Gusto 501 as two recent examples.

  But with the neighborhoods like the Distillery District and Leslieville attracting lots of yuppies and with neighborhoods like Regent Park and the West Don Lands coming online, it shouldn’t come as a big surprise to you that developers and other entrepreneurs are looking east. Maybe you should too.

  2014.05.10

• New York YIMBY

  Yesterday a friend of mine sent me this NY Times article covering a site called New York YIMBY.

  I’ve spoken about the term YIMBY before and this site is exactly that: a site dedicated to “saying yes in my back yard” to new development in New York. It was founded by 23 year old Nikolai Fedak and currently receives 75,000 monthly visitors. He has plans to expand to other cities and I’ve already emailed him to see if he has any plans for a Toronto YIMBY.

  At a time when it’s common to hate on developers and new developments, it’s refreshing to see a site dedicated to the exact opposite. That’s not to say that all developments are good (New York YIMBY has no problem blasting the ones that suck, as it should), but it’s certainly framing development as a positive thing for cities. 

  In growing cities like New York and Toronto, development is going to happen. And so I would rather we focus on how to make it happen in the best way possible instead of just saying no.

  2014.04.11

• What makes midrise development difficult?

  A reader recently suggested that I do a post explaining why we aren’t seeing more midrise buildings going up in Toronto. Specifically, why are midrise buildings considered to be “too risky” for developers and what could be done to improve the situation? So today I’d like to focus on that topic.

  But first, let me say that I think Toronto is already in the midst of its midrise development era. The push for intensification first brought about towers, but we’ve come to realize that the tower isn’t necessarily going to serve everybody’s needs.

  Here’s what John Bentley Mays recently wrote in the Globe and Mail regarding midrise developments:

  With Duke, SQ, Nest and similar structures, we may be seeing the start of a promising design trend in Toronto’s multifamily housing market.

  And given that our Chief Planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, has been a vocal supporter of midrise, I think there’s no question that we’ll only see more and more of this type of development. Nonetheless, there are challenges. Here are a few that come to mind.

  1. Fragmented sites

  Because midrise developments typically target established main streets with smaller lot sizes, developers often have to contend with fragmented ownership in order to assemble a site. So instead of talking to one owner (say the owner of a large parking lot downtown), a developer may have to contend with a dozen owners who all need to get on board for the development to happen.

  2. Scale is too small

  Developers have a lot of fixed costs that don’t materially change whether you’re putting up a 50 storey tower or an 8 storey midrise building. Some costs are certainly variable, but there are overall economies to scale to having more units in which to distribute costs over.

  3. Community opposition

  The whole point of midrise intensification is to increase the housing supply in established neighborhoods. But along with this comes greater risk for community opposition. You may have a neighbor who’s been living for 30 years adjacent to where you want to build. And when you come along and try and build a 10 storey midrise building, they can get grouchy.

  4. Strict guidelines 

  To try and counteract community opposition (and promote good urbanism), the city has developed a number of design guidelines for midrise buildings. And while they’re well intentioned, they can be onerous for developers and designers. For example, the requirement to terrace down towards adjacent residential neighborhoods produces a lot of inefficiencies (though it does create spectacular terraces). Oftentimes you’ll end up with more unit types than you would in a large tower.

  All this said, I’m a big believer in the midrise building typology. At TAS, I’m involved in two such projects–DUKE and Kingston&Co. Both are exciting projects and both, I think, are at the forefront of a new development era for Toronto. Vancouver pioneered the podium + point tower typology. Toronto is about to do the same with midrise buildings.

  2014.03.30

• Developer Dirt: Site selection and acquisition

  I’ve already spoken about why I became a developer and offered some insights into how you might be able to transition from architecture into development. So now I’d like to start focusing more on the day-to-day of what it means to be a real estate developer.

  And since I seem to be getting a lot of questions from readers on career and development related topics, I’ve decided that I’m going to turn these posts into a regular blog series. Right now the working name is “Developer Dirt”, but if you have a better name I’m all ears (let me know in the comments below).

  So let’s start with step 1.

  You’re ready to develop a new project and you’re now in the market for some land (also known as a site). It could be a greenfield site (meaning it’s virgin land that hasn’t yet been tainted by humans) or, on the other end of the spectrum, it could a brownfield site (meaning it probably once housed industry, it’s contaminated as all hell, and you’re going to need to clean that puppy up before you build).

  Without going into further detail about all the different kinds of sites you could potentially buy (which is a post in itself), here are 3 high level things to keep in mind as you move forward.

  Land is the residual claimant

  What this means is that you want to start with your top line. You want to start with revenue. What can I build on this site (use and square feet) and how much can I ultimately sell or lease that space for?

  Let’s say, for example, that you think you can build 100,000 square feet. If it were office space, you’d want to know that rents in your area are $30 per square feet and that that’s going to render you $3M a year in rental income. If it were residential condos, you’d want to know that the market is absorbing $500 per square foot and that if you sold 100,000 square feet worth of condo, that your revenue would be $50M. But remember this is top line.

  Once you know your top line, you then need to figure out what it’s going to cost to bring you that revenue stream. In other words, what are the hard costs (construction costs), the soft costs (consultant fees and other non-construction costs), the return my investors are going to demand, the money I need to keep the lights on in my business, and so on.

  Hopefully, once you’ve calculated all of these numbers, you’ll have some money left over from that original top line number. That residual money is what you can reasonably afford to pay for the land, which is why it’s often referred to as the residual claimant. But even though it comes last in this example, it comes first in development. If you overpay at the onset, it’ll be an uphill battle the rest of the way.

  You often don’t know what you can build

  But here’s the rub: You often don’t know exactly what you can build. When developers buy land they often consider what they can build “as-of-right” and what they think they can build as a result of variances, rezoning and other discretionary actions.

  As-of-right basically refers to what the current zoning permits. It’s what you could go out tomorrow and build (after you get the requisite permits of course). Unfortunately though, as-of-right uses and densities are not often inline with what’s actually happening in a neighborhood. So you need to go into the city for things like a zoning by-law amendment.

  Similarly, vendors want the most for their land and so they’re going to be aggressive on this front. As a developer, this is the point where you surround yourself with a team of smart people who can help you figure out what’s reasonably attainable for the site in question. And sometimes you have to worry about the politics as much as the planning.

  Approvals are uncertain

  During the due diligence phase, the goal is obviously to mitigate as much of your risk as possible. Nobody wants to get stuck with a piece of land that they overpaid for that they now can’t (profitably) develop. But sometimes shit happens.

  It may seem like a no brainer. You could have a site that’s surrounded by transit with lots of great precedences (this matters) for the height and density that you’re hoping to obtain and that you feel will be appropriate for the neighborhood. But sometimes the stars don’t align.

  And that’s why development is a risky game.

  2014.02.21

• Say hello to Kingston&Co

  

  As of today, Family Day Monday, you’re going to start seeing information released regarding TAS’s (in partnership with Main & Main) newest community called Kingston&Co. It’s located on Kingston Road, just east of Victoria Park Avenue, in a neat area called Kingston Road Village. You can already register at kingstonandco.ca. And as part of the registration process, we’re also soliciting feedback as to the types of retail the community would like to see added to the area. Note: There’s already a Starbucks 🙂

  At the same time, we’ve also launched a redesign of our corporate site (tasdesignbuild.com). The biggest change is that we’ve taken the blog—which was hidden under a “Neighbourhoods” tab—and made it front and center on the homepage. We see this as a pretty significant change. One that shows that we would like you to join us in a conversation around city building. We now allow comments on all of our blog posts and you can see right on the homepage who the author of the post is.

  If you have any feedback on either Kingston&Co or the new homepage, we’d love to hear from you in the comment section below.

  2014.02.17

• On medium density development

  Over the past decade, Toronto has seen a proliferation of condos across the city. And while I do think this intensification is a great thing, we’ve been much better at building towers than anything else. We’ve neglected medium density development and it has bifurcated our housing market: you’re either in the market for a condo or for a house.

  And since we’re not really building anymore of the latter, Toronto has become accustomed to bidding wars and multiple offers. Every young couple I know is in the market for an “hip fixer-upper in the city.” Problem is, that’ll cost you $700,000 or more and you may still need to gut it.

  At this point, it’s not realistic to expect that we’ll be building anymore single family homes in the city—at least not at any sort of significant scale. We’re tapped out. But what we can reasonably expect is more medium density development. I’m talking about midrise developments along our avenues, laneway houses in people’s backyards and other creative infill solutions that sit somewhere between a house and a highrise.

  If we’re concerned about creating equitable housing opportunities, then we’re going to need relieve some of the pressures on low rise housing. We’re going to need more diversity in our product offerings.

  2014.02.16

• Why Toronto should stop complaining about all its condos

  Below is my latest post from the TAS blog. You can find it cross-posted here.

  Last week I wrote a post on my personal blog about housing policy in San Francisco. My argument was that the backlash against the tech community (for allegedly driving up real estate prices) is actually misdirected and that housing policy should be the target. 

  The reasoning behind this is simple: More people are moving to San Francisco than new housing is being provided. And so regardless of whether you have tech workers or not, you have an environment where the rich are always going to outbid the poor for housing.

  If you look at the numbers from the past 2 decades, San Francisco on average builds 1,500 new housing units a year. And yet the city gained approximately 25,000 new people between 2010-2012 (that’s roughly 8,300 people per year). So what you have is a perpetual housing supply shortage.

  To correct this problem, San Francisco needs to start building. And I’m stealing this idea from Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, who wrote an article on this very same topic back in December of last year for Bloomberg (and a book called Triumph of the City). His argument was that “the surest way to a more equitable housing market is to reduce the barriers to building.”

  Now, if you compare San Francisco’s situation to Toronto’s, we’re almost on the opposite end of the spectrum. Toronto doesn’t have a problem building. We’re building lots. So much so that it’s become fashionable to joke around and complain about all the condos going up in this city.

  But it’s important to remember that all of these condos are making us a relatively affordable city by global standards. We have more people moving to this city every year than San Francisco and yet home prices are less. We’re also less expensive than Vancouver, where there are strong natural barriers to building, namely water and mountains.

  So rather than complain, I’m going to be the contrarian. I like seeing new housing built. I like knowing that the neighborhoods I love in this city are becoming home to more and more people.

  At one point, my home (which is in the St. Lawrence Market) was a “new development” and somebody could have fought and opposed it. But it was allowed to be built and I was allowed to move in. I’m thankful for that. And so my plan is to be just as gracious to the next person who wants to join the neighborhood.

  2014.01.31

• A new model for the architecture profession

  Last week I provided a few suggestions for how architects might be able to transition over to real estate development. And I ended by saying that I loved architecture school, but that it could use a few more business and entrepreneurship classes. Today, I’d liked to expand on that idea.

  When I was doing my Master of Architecture at Penn, I spent a lot of time thinking about hybrid models for the architecture profession. I was trying to figure out a way to reconcile my love of design with my desire to be more of a building entrepreneur.

  I was interested in what Jonathan Segal was doing down in San Diego with his “architect as developer” approach. And I was really taken by a lecture that Joshua Prince-Ramus (formerly of OMA, now REX) gave where he talked about how architects have marginalized themselves (away from being the master builder) by shying away from liability.

  Out of all the models, conflating architecture and development seems to me like a real possibility. I believe that good developers understand good design and that good architects understand what’s good for the market. So why not merge the two?

  We know that the architecture profession is facing significant challenges; fewer and fewer architecture school grads are getting licensed and actually become a bona fide architect. Some think this calls for licensure reform, but I’m also interested in revisiting the model in its entirety.

  Imagine if every architecture school taught students how to design a building and then go out and actually get it leased up and built. Is this too much to ask of one discipline?

  I can see firms naturally splitting up roles between those who prefer the design side and those who prefer the selling and business side, but is there any reason why the same firm couldn’t be handling both?

  2014.01.20

• What real estate developers do and why I became one

  I met up with a friend yesterday after work and the topic of my blog came up. He said he loved the content, but that he would like to learn more about the inner workings of what it means to be a real estate developer. His belief was that there are lots of city blogs out there, but rarely do you get the candid perspective of a developer.

  I immediately thought this was a good idea for one simple reason: When I’m at a party and I tell someone that I’m a real estate developer, oftentimes they have no idea what that means. They usually think I’m a real estate agent. Or they ask me to explain a typical day. Either way, I’ve found it generally smoother (and more impressive) to just lie and say I’m an architect.

  So I’m going to do just what my friend suggested. I’m going to make an effort to talk more about what it means to be a real estate developer. And to kick it off, I thought I’d start with some of the basics and then talk about how I got into the business.

  Real estate developers are effectively the entrepreneur that make a new building happen. They go out and buy the land, they put a team in place (architect, engineers and so on), they get the necessary approvals to build (with the help of the team of course), they finance the deal, and then they get a builder to actually construct the project.

  Developers are like an orchestra conductor. They don’t play any instruments, they just direct the performance.

  But at the same time, developers assume 100% of the risk of the project. If the building fails (because you can’t sell the condo units or lease out the space), that all falls on the developer (and his/her investors). All of the other team members are getting paid based on the services they provide. They’re consultants.

  This distinction is what (can) make real estate development so lucrative—with risk comes reward. And I’ll be completely candid in saying that this is part of the reason I decided to get into development. I was training to be an architect and I started realizing that I could make more money as a developer.

  But I also came to the realization that as a developer I would likely end up having more say over the built environment. That’s the unfortunate reality of my industry. Even though architects spend far more time than your average developer thinking about what makes buildings and cities great, I would argue that they don’t have nearly the same amount of say. Because if they did, we probably wouldn’t have so many crappy buildings in our cities. But it’s this way because architects aren’t assuming the risk.

  Part of me used to actually feel bad about switching over to the dark side, which is how some architects refer to the development game. But the best way to summarize how I feel today is through what an architect friend told me a few years ago: “Brandon, cities don’t need more architects that care about design. We have lots of those. Cities need more developers that care about design.”

  And so that’s what I became. A developer who loves design and cares deeply about one of our greatest assets—cities.

  2014.01.10