Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Tag: development

  • We are hiring

    We are looking to hire a Project Coordinator to join the Development team here at Slate Asset Management in our Toronto office.

    This is an ideal position for someone who is passionate about development and cities; who wants to be part of an entrepreneurial and growing team; and who is able to be hands on and take ownership over what they do.

    The Project Coordinator would work closely with the full Development team and support all aspects of project delivery from acquisition to exit/stabilization. Eventually, we want this person to lead a portfolio of their own development projects.

    We’re looking for someone with the following skills and characteristics:

    • Demonstrated passion for city building, design, and urban affairs
    • Experience in real estate and/or development
    • Understanding of planning & land use policies, development finance, and design & construction (though, the right attitude and work ethic goes a long way)
    • High energy, with the ability to thrive in a fast-paced entrepreneurial environment while at the same time being extremely detail oriented
    • Strong communication skills, both written and verbal (well-reasoned opinions are crucial)
    • Proficiency in Excel, SketchUp, CAD/Revit and other relevant software considered an asset
    • Degree(s) in related field(s)

    If you’re interested after reading all of this, please send your resume and cover letter to brandon@slateam.com. Your short cover letter should include why you want to work at Slate, as well as your favorite recent development project (it can be anywhere in the world but make sure to include why).

    Alongside this, we would like to see a link/URL that helps us get to know you better. This could be your Twitter or Instagram, a personal blog, a portfolio, or something else that represents who you are. If you don’t have any of these, well then you’ll have to get creative.

    Thanks for your interest.

  • Ground breaking at Junction House

    This morning was the official ground breaking ceremony at Junction House. It was a beautiful sunny day and our FOREVER mural proved to be the perfect — albeit ironic — backdrop for our photos. Photos from the event will be released next week.

    Junction House is a project that we have been working on since 2016. Development doesn’t happen overnight. So it’s important to celebrate these milestones — both for the team and for future residents of Junction House.

    A big thank you to everyone who came out. We’re all looking forward to the next phase of the project: construction.

  • A small site solution: Inverse Density

    My recent post about minimum project sizes triggered some great follow-up discussions over email. Today, I learned about a Master Plan that was recently completed for Little Havana, Miami by the urban design and planning firm Plusurbia.

    In it, they try to address some of the problems that I described in my post through something they call “Inverse Density.” Given the tendencies toward larger projects, they are proposing to incentivize the development of smaller and underused lots with more density.

    The idea being that if you can encourage more smaller scale development, you can actually help to protect the character of a place. In 2017, the National Trust for Historic Preservation declared the neighborhood a national treasure.

    Here’s a screenshot from the plan:

    What you are seeing here is existing vs. proposed policies. The proposed scenarios both result in higher densities, even though the lots are smaller. Alongside this, they are proposing to get rid of parking minimums for lots less than 7,500 sf.

    It’s an intriguing idea and I’m glad they shared it with me. If you’d like to download a copy of the full Little Havana Master Plan, click here.

  • Minimum project size — how small is too small?

    Many, or perhaps most, developers I know have a minimum project size that they will work on. That’s why you’ll hear people say, “No, that project is too small. I need at least X square feet or Y number of units.” Given that smaller scale development such as laneway housing and “the missing middle” are so in vogue today, I thought I would discuss some of the reasons why scale matters.

    But first, it’s worth mentioning that “laneway suites,” as we have structured them here in Toronto, are intended to be built by individual homeowners and not by developers. The lots can’t be severed and most lots will yield less than 1,000 square feet. So this is a bit of a unique circumstance. As most of you know, I am a big supporter of this initiative.

    When you get into larger developer-led projects, it’s a different ball game. For one, it’s hard to even find sites. And good luck if you need to deal with multiple owners as part of an assembly. Most landowners have pricing expectations that do not even remotely align with “missing middle” level densities.

    But assuming you’ve been able to find land at a reasonable price, you still have to contend with the fact that projects have a lot of fixed costs, as well as diseconomies of scale. In other words, there are schedule, cost, and resourcing considerations that won’t change no matter how big or small you go. It’s still going to take this long and cost this much, and you’re still going to need a set of humans to manage it through.

    This can then create a situation where there’s not enough margin for error. The project is simply too small to absorb any shocks, such as an unforeseen delay or an unforeseen groundwater concern that is now adding millions to your project budget. There’s a lot of risk with development and it’s prudent to have contingency room. That’s harder to do with smaller projects.

    The other problem developers run into with smaller projects is that the construction subtrades also tend to think of them as smaller projects. They have their own set of fixed costs and margins to worry about. So unless you happen to catch them with an opening in their schedule, you run the risk of them telling you they’re too busy or them giving you a stinky price, which is just another way of them saying they don’t want the job.

    On top of all this, there’s minimum project size inflation. If capital is not a constraint, there’s a tendency to want to do bigger projects (see above). And because the cost of everything keeps going up, it’s simultaneously getting harder and harder to make smaller projects pencil; unless you, maybe, go ultra luxury and ultra exclusive. But that’s kind of the opposite goal of this whole “missing middle” movement, is it not?

    Photo by JOHN TOWNER on Unsplash

  • Junction House ground breaking

    The Junction House team is excited to announce that construction will start this fall and that our ground breaking ceremony will be held at 11AM on Saturday, October, 19th. Mark your calendars.

    It will take place at our Sales Gallery — 2720 Dundas St W. This will be one of the last opportunities to see the award-winning Junction House Sales Gallery before it is demolished in preparation for construction.

    There will be photo opportunities for everyone in attendance, and so we encourage you to bring your phones/cameras. You’re welcome to extend this invitation to family and friends, but kindly RSVP by sending an email to info@junctionhouse.ca.

    We look forward to seeing you there.

  • New rental supply needs to double in Toronto

    This week, RBC Economics published a study on Canada’s rental market where they argued that the pace of new supply needs to at least double in markets like Toronto in order to meet future housing demand and balance the market. Similar things, I’m sure, could be said about many other housing markets around the world.

    The report pegs the current rental housing deficit in Toronto at about 9,100 units:

    And because they believe that the cost of ownership is pushing more people into rentals, the number of renter households is expected to grow at an average rate of 22,200 units per year in Toronto.

    If you take 22,200 units per year over the next two years, and add in the current deficit of 9,100 rental units, you get to a total count of 53,500 rental units. This is what RBC Economics believes must be delivered to the market in order to restore equilibrium, and decrease the upward pressure on rents.

    Rental units are, of course, delivered to the market in two main ways. There’s purpose-built rentals and there are for-sale units that end up as rental housing. But even if you amalgamate both of these tenures, we are not building enough housing.

    Against this backdrop, I find it curious that developers are so often vilified. Earlier this week, I saw Jennifer Keesmaat tweet out that — as we ready for this fall’s federal election — any sensible housing plan must move away from our current for profit housing delivery model.

    Who, then, will build these 53,500 rental units? That part wasn’t clear to me.

  • Metrolinx to further optimize the Union Pearson Express train

    It was announced this week that Metrolinx will be making changes to the popular UPX train service that connects Union Station to Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. This is an interesting transit story. And as someone who will be moving to the Junction (adjacent to one of the stops along the way), I have a vested interest in this announcement.

    The UPX started out as a high-priced boutique train service to the airport. A one-way fare was $27.50 per person (without a PRESTO card). This was too much and I argued that here on the blog. If you looked at the math and compared it to the alternatives, such as taking an UberX, most people were not going to take this train.

    The fares were ultimately dropped — by a lot — and the service then took off not only as a link to Pearson but as an inner-city commuter service. I now sometimes call it the Union-Junction Express, because the actual train ride from Union to Bloor St (at Dundas West) is about 7 minutes once you’re on the train.

    The announcement this week merely solidifies the train’s evolution from high-priced boutique service (which didn’t work) to airport/commuter service (which is really working). The trains are expected to run more frequently now, some of which will continue to make the same stops as today and some of which will stop in new locations along the line.

    As transit-advocate Cameron MacLeod said in the Globe and Mail yesterday, “there’s both good and bad news here.” The good news is more frequent service. Even quicker trips in some instances. And better integration with the broader GO train network. The bad news is the award-winning UPX station at Union will no longer be needed. The service is expected to move to a new platform.

    Photo by Sean Thoman on Unsplash

  • A brief history of Times Square

    From 1899 to 1902, the north side of 42nd Street, between 7th Avenue and Broadway in Manhattan, was occupied by the Pabst Hotel. At the time, this neighborhood was called Longacre Square.

    Owned by the Pabst Brewing Company of Milwaukee, the building was part of a growing network of hotels and restaurants that the company used to promote its beer. Note the cool rooftop sign.

    The portico you see in the above picture was highly controversial. I guess some things never change. City officials were criticized for allowing such a structure to encroach over a public right-of-way. Curiously, the Times was one of its biggest critics. A judge ultimately ordered for it to be removed in 1901.

    The building also came down not long after. The introduction of New York City’s first subway — operated by the private Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) Company — began to spur new investment in the area. The first IRT line ran right through Longacre Square.

    Adolph S. Ochs was the owner of the The New York Times during this period and he believed that the new subway line would increase foot traffic in the area. Betting on transit is clearly not a new phenomenon. So in January 1905, the newspaper moved into a new headquarters on the site of the former Pabst Hotel; a building that it developed for itself.

    Today this building is known as One Times Square. Here is a photo of it under construction in 1903:

    And here is a photo of the completed building in 1919 (at this point, it was no longer occupied by the paper):

    At the time of its completion, it was one of the tallest buildings in New York City. And eventually, perhaps as a result of some encouragement on the part of Ochs, Longacre Square was renamed to commemorate this new building and the paper. It became known as Times Square.

    By 1913, the Times had outgrown the building and would move down the street. But not before it would introduce a now famous New Year’s Eve celebration in the Square. The Times would continue to own the building up until 1961.

    The area continued to evolve into an important theater district and transit hub. Everything connected through Times Square. Sadly, the Great Depression was not kind to the area and, either because of it or alongside it, Times Square declined into an area of vice filled with everything from burlesque shows to prostitution. This would come to define the area for almost the balance of the 20th century.

    It would take many attempts starting in the 1980s to try and redirect Times Square’s now entrenched reputation. In 1982, the Department of City Planning created the Special Midtown Zoning District, which attempted to attract developers with tax breaks and other subsidies. It didn’t really work.

    The City eventually looked to eminent domain to try and tidy up the area. But property owners — many of whom owned the adult businesses in the district — objected via a group known as the Coalition for Free Expression.

    It would take a few other mayors, many legal battles, and interim ordinances such as the 60/40 rule — which allowed adult businesses to continue operating as long as no more than 40% of their floor area were allocated to sex — before things would really change.

    Today, or at least as of 2015-2016, Times Square represents 15% of New York City’s total economic output. And it does this via 0.1% of the city’s total land area and 7% of its total employment.

    Real estate in the district is estimated to be worth over $7 billion, with the Square generating about $2.5 billion in municipal tax revenue and about $2.3 billion in state revenue. A lot has changed in more than a century. But perhaps most importantly, the portico came down.

    For more on Times Square, check out the Times Square Alliance.

    Archive Photos: Wikipedia

  • Solving the rubik’s cube

    Developing a building can often feel like you’re trying to solve a rubik’s cube. Among other things, you have to manage a myriad of different stakeholders, all of which — naturally — operate in their own self-interest. There’s the city, community, politicians, various agencies, consultants, tenants, purchasers, lenders, investors, the market at large (of which you really have no control of), and many others. Oftentimes you even have stakeholders whose interests are mutually exclusive. Indeed, the things that they want can sometimes be at odds with each other. Your job is to figure out a solution that satisfies as many of these interests as possible.

    To give you an example, let’s say that you’ve been asked to introduce a stepback into your building in order to break up the elevation. From an urban design standpoint, this may make perfect sense. Hello, datum line. But now your construction costs just went up. You have to transfer your mechanical lines, insulate the roof, introduce new bulkheads, and, for the purposes of this example, let’s say you now need to introduce a structural transfer. This is big cost item that you hadn’t accounted for. And because you just reduced the height of the building to satisfy another stakeholder, you don’t have the excess clear height to accommodate the additional depth required by this new structural element. There is, of course, always a solution. But usually something will need to give.

    At the same time, this raises some interesting philosophical questions. What’s more important in this example? The urban design move or keeping construction costs low so that the building can be delivered more affordably? The cynics will argue that this is a moot point because developers will always profit maximize. But I would encourage you to check out some of my past posts, such as “Cost-plus pricing” and “The impact of inclusionary zoning on development feasibility.” This problem solving dynamic is one of the things that makes development so challenging. But it is also one of the things that makes it incredibly rewarding.

    Photo by Ivan Bandura on Unsplash

  • New Monocle City Series to launch in Chengdu

    Today, Monocle announced a new “City Series,” which will take the form of a focused half-day summit. The objective is to explore the urban issues facing mayors, developers, investors, and citizens. The first summit will take place this November 4 (2019) in Chengdu — the capital of the Sichuan province in China.

    For those of you who aren’t familiar with Chengdu, it’s a modest Chinese city with over 14 million people in the administrative area and over 10 million people in the urban boundary (2014 figures). It is the 5th most populous agglomeration in China.

    I can’t vouch for the quality of this new series, since this will be the first one, but Monocle has been running a longer, multi-day, quality of life conference for a few years now. Mostly, I am intrigued by the selection of Chengdu as the inaugural city for this new series. I take it as evidence that interesting things are happening there.

    Image: Monocle