Tag: globe and mail

• The tricks with masterplanning

  Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail recently made a good point in one of his articles about how challenging it is to properly “placemake” when it comes to large-scale masterplanned projects. This blog post is not at all intended as a commentary on any one project, but I would like to acknowledge that, for a variety of reasons, places do often need time, layers of history, and some patina on them in order to really settle in. When you build big, it can be easy for things to end up feeling sterile.

  It is also true that tastes can change over time (as we have talked about before), though you could argue that this change is driven by the settling in process. Spaces start to get rethought, reconfigured and recast, and that can make them more desirable.

  But it’s not just about time. What else is going on here that makes masterplanning so tricky? Four things immediately come to mind. If you have any others, please share them in the comment section below.

  One, a lot of the old stuff that we love is now illegal and no longer possible. Here is a great example from Paris that I wrote about. But there are countless others. Another example from Toronto might be the corner retail stores that used to dot our residential neighborhoods. In my opinion, these are wonderful additions. They create urban vibrancy. But today they are generally legal non-conforming uses.

  Two, great urban experiences often happen at the micro scale. Things like the perfect patio with a great view of the street and full afternoon sun. Or that intimate side street lined with beautiful homes. These are some of the moments that make cities great. But when you’re masterplanning at the master scale, it is perhaps easier for more of these intimate details to get lost.

  Three, any new community needs to be seeded. Cities and communities are nothing without people. And so what will be the anchors? What will bring people here? How are we going to animate its streets and public spaces? These can be tricky problems to solve and they often take time (and density).

  Four, masterplanning likely equals fewer feedback loops. I recently came across this great line from Chris Dixon: “Composability is to software as compounding interest is to finance.” Composability is the ability to mix and match software components. And the idea here is that open source software allows new software to get built on top of existing stuff (just like interest on top of interest). This way the world never needs to solve a problem twice.

  I’m not sure what the pithy line should be for city building, but cities also compound. We are constantly building on top of the efforts of others, except when we’re largely not, and we’re designing a whole bunch of new stuff all at once, as is typically the case with masterplanned projects. This isn’t inherently wrong, but building a community from scratch will always be more difficult than adding on to one that is already successful.

  2021.12.03

• Releasing the shackles on mid-rise development

  

  I love mid-rise buildings. I think they are an incredibly livable scale of housing, which is why I am looking forward to moving into Junction House when we begin occupancies next year. But as we have talked about many times before on the blog, the mid-rise economics are challenging in this city, which is why we also don’t have any other Avenue-style mid-rise projects in the pipeline right now. We haven’t been able to find land where the math works.

  Here are two excerpts from a recent Globe and Mail article — titled “Toronto’s mix of planning rules limits growth of mid-rise housing” — that speaks to this dynamic:

  For well over two decades, Toronto’s official plan has called for transit-oriented intensification along the “Avenues,” much of it expected in the form of mid-rise apartments that can be approved “as of right” – meaning without zoning or official plan appeals. Such buildings are often seen as more livable and human scale than 50- or 60-storey towers.

  Yet, ironically, the highly prescriptive Mid-Rise Guidelines – combined with skyrocketing land, labour and building costs, as well as timelines that can run to six years for a mid-sized building – have turned these projects into pyramid-shaped unicorns, often filled with deep, dark and narrow units dubbed “bowling alleys.”

  “The economics are so frail,” says architect Dermot Sweeny, founding principal of Sweeny & Co., who describes the angular plane requirements as “a massive cost” because they make the structure more complicated and expensive while reducing the amount of leasable or saleable floor space.

  The critiques extend beyond the industry. Professor of architecture Richard Sommer, former dean of the John H. Daniels Faculty of Landscape, Architecture and Design at the University of Toronto, describes the controls in the guidelines as “very crude.” “They’re built around a mindset of deference to low-rise communities.”

  My opinion is that, at a minimum, we need to revisit the “guidelines” that govern these kinds of projects and we need to make this scale of development “as-of-right.” In the same way that laneway suites work, where you simply apply for a building permit, we need to make it just as easy for mid-rise housing. There just too many barriers and too many opportunities for something to come up that could hold up the entire project for months or years.

  Building at a variety of scales is important for the fabric and vitality of our cities. Unfortunately, I have all but made up my mind that small doesn’t work unless it’s as-of-right. I would love to build another laneway house and I fully expect that to happen at some point in the near future. But I just can’t seem to get my head around another mid-rise building right now. I wish that wasn’t the case. And it’s certainly not because of a lack of effort.

  2021.06.25

• Penthouse at 388 Richmond Street West sells for $2.4 million

  My friend Christopher Bibby — who is a real estate agent here in Toronto — is in the Globe and Mail today talking about how Toronto-area buyers have returned to downtown. The article is by Carolyn Ireland and in it Bibby cites two of his recent deals: A large 2 bedroom suite at 168 King Street East that just sold for $1.2 million and an even larger penthouse at 388 Richmond Street West that just sold for $2.4 million.

  (Sidebar: 388 Richmond Street West is one of my all-time favorite buildings in the city and was developed by Howard Cohen nearly two decades ago. For more on Howard, check out this post I wrote back in 2016.)

  These are two examples of buyers who want to live in the city. Of course, there are countless others who are making moves right now. As Bibby points out in the article, the mood has certainly shifted from what we were seeing last year in the condo space. Condo buyers today are even starting to comb through expired listings in the hopes of finding off-market deals.

  I view this kind of real estate activity as a leading indicator for what’s to come in the the city. Rental activity is naturally going to lag until people starting returning to offices en masse and downtown life fully resumes. It’s more of a short-term “buying” decision. But as a condo purchaser, it’s easy (and probably better) to look through the short term.

  I think that’s what people are doing right now and they’re saying to themselves, “yeah, I want to be in the city.” I know that’s how I feel.

  2021.04.07

• Long live the city

  The sentiment around downtown/urban condos has completely changed over the last month or so. This is happening in Toronto and, from what I hear, it’s happening in many other cities as well. Carolyn Ireland published an article in the Globe and Mail today called, “For downtown Toronto condos, the worm has turned.”

  But I can also speak to what we (and our colleagues in the industry) are seeing on the ground. A sense of urgency has returned. Prices are starting to push upward. And people are buying. The last few weeks have also seen some very successful condo launches in the city including 8 Wellesley by CentreCourt Developments. I can’t remember if they sold out in 7 minutes or 7.5 minutes.

  None of this is necessarily surprising. Interest rates are low. The US is doing a good job at vaccinating its people. Single-family home prices have exploded over the last year (pushing buyers toward condos). And there seems to be an emerging view that the second half of this year is going to be pretty good. (This was my view at the beginning of the year and stand behind that position.)

  Today was a beautiful spring-like day in Toronto. I was out for a site visit this morning and the sidewalks were filled with people milling about and enjoying the sunshine. City life isn’t going anywhere my friends. Long live the city.

  2021.03.10

• Building cool things is not as easy as it may seem

  This one here had to go to the OMB to get its approvals. https://t.co/Wn2N3MoWIG

  — Brandon Donnelly 🇨🇦 (@donnelly_b) December 13, 2020

  There was a good discussion on Twitter this morning about small-scale commercial uses in residential neighborhoods, like the coffee shop shown above on Shaw Street. In most residential neighborhoods in Toronto, this kind of commercial activity is not permitted if you were to try and initiate it today. The small convenience stores and bodegas that remain are often legal non-conforming uses. And while generally considered desirable in their current confirm, if you were to try and make a change, you could get caught in some municipal red tape where your grandfathered status suddenly no longer applies.

  That is exactly what happened in the case of the above coffee shop and, from the discussions that happened on Twitter this morning, it is a problem that is not unique to Toronto. Alex Bozikovic wrote about this coffee shop and this project in the Globe and Mail over seven years ago. Getting it approved and built was no easy task. And my friend Jeremiah Shamess — who renovated a similar and formerly commercial corner building in the area — ran into the exact same challenges.

  But let’s consider the other side of this argument for a minute. It’s easy to look at a great and well-designed neighborhood coffee shop like this one and say to yourself that it is obviously a desirable use and that we should be encouraging more of them in our residential neighborhoods. But what if it was a noisy late-night bar, a nail salon, or a massage parlor? Would your opinion change? Would it change if you were an immediate neighbor? It is perhaps easy to see why the fear of the things we don’t want has led us to sterilize our neighborhoods to the point where we no longer allow the things that we may in fact want.

  And herein lies the immense frustration that many of us have with our land use policies. There are countless examples of obviously desirable uses and built forms that are exceedingly difficult to execute on because of the barriers that we ourselves have put in place. Whether it’s a cool neighborhood coffee shop or new affordable housing, there are far too many examples of these sorts of projects being stuck in some kind of planning ether — sometimes for decades. We say and know that we want these things, but then it is frequently the case that we can’t get out of the way so that they can actually happen.

  2020.12.13

• I want an expensive condo

  The Globe and Mail published this headline today: “Developers building more small condos, despite people clamoring for more space.” It’s behind a paywall and so some of you may not have read it. But the data looks something like this. Of all the new condo project launches that happened this year in Toronto, studios and one-bedroom suites accounted for 61% of all new inventory, according to Urbanation. This is a higher percentage than what the market saw in 2019 and 2018, and this is despite the fact that many/most people are still working from home and would probably appreciate a bit more space.

  The short answer as to why this is happening is affordability. For years I have been clamoring for a dual aspect oceanfront penthouse on Miami Beach, but that time hasn’t come for me yet. Things cost money. And the downward pressure on unit sizes is a direct result of developers trying to ensure that their inventory is within the reach reach of buyers (there’s a sweet spot somewhere in the range of $500-700k right now). Developers are heavily incentivized to build what sells and rents, both quickly and at the highest price. That tends to be smaller units, especially early on.

  Where this goes in the future is anybody’s guess. But with the dramatic price increases that we have seen on the low-rise side of the market, I suspect that we’ll see a subsequent surge in demand for condos — maybe even larger condos.

  2020.12.07

• Shrinking lot sizes and unit sizes

  Shane Dingman’s recent piece in the Globe and Mail about shrinking lot sizes raises two interesting points.

  One, new low-rise lot sizes seem to be shrinking and that’s probably a normal market outcome. Similar to the way in which average unit sizes have been generally coming down for mid-rise and high-rise product, it is a way to maintain some semblance of affordability in the face of ever-rising costs.

  The average price of a new condo in the City of Toronto last quarter was nearly $1,300 psf. That means that if you had an average unit size of 1,000 square feet, you’d have an average selling price of $1.3 million (to state the obvious). Not everyone can afford this ticket price, and so there’s downward pressure on unit sizes in order to get the face prices down.

  Two, developer margins aren’t increasing just because home prices have been going up. At best, they’ve remained constant (Shane provides a quantitative example in his article). But there are also many cases where margins are getting squeezed as a result of rising costs.

  All of this to say that I think we can continue to expect downward pressure on lot sizes and unit sizes as the Toronto region continues to grow.

  2020.11.01

• Everything has a cost

  A new report was just published by Urbanation and the Federation of Rental-Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) arguing that the Greater Toronto Area is undersupplying rental housing to the tune of about 20,000 units per year. This number considers both purpose-built rental housing and condominiums that are purchased by investors and later rented out. (Shane Dingman also covered the report in this recent Globe and Mail article.)

  These findings probably won’t come as a surprise to a lot of you. It is pretty common for most big/growing cities to operate with a perpetual housing supply deficit. With all of the barriers to development, it’s often impossible to keep pace with demand. This naturally creates upward pressure on pricing. But the other factor that cannot be ignored is development costs. How much does it cost to actually deliver new supply?

  Here’s an excerpt from the report that speaks to this consideration:

  While the results of the infill development potential exercise are encouraging, the economics
  of intensifying these sites may be too difficult for owners to ultimately move them forward in many cases even with a zero land cost, as achievable rents outside of Central Toronto are
  often not high enough to offset development and operating costs.

  It’s also something that we’ve talked about many times before on the blog. Even with free land, there are going to be countless sites and neighborhoods where it does not make economic sense to build anything new: development costs > potential revenues. And so to build, somebody is going to have to pay. Either the costs need to be subsidized or the revenues needs to be topped up somehow. Otherwise, supply = 0.

  If you’re facing a deficit of 20,000 units per year, this seems like something you may want to consider. How might we increase supply? And how might we increase the supply of affordable housing? Many, including some of the folks interviewed in Shane’s Globe and Mail article, believe that inclusionary zoning is one such solution. Force new developments to deliver a certain percentage of affordable units (kind of like forcing restaurants to offer up 5-10% of their tables at a loss).

  But again, I think it’s important to remember that whenever costs exceed revenues, somebody is going to have to pay for that shortfall, otherwise supply = 0. Something has to give, whether that be reduced costs, greater density, or higher rents on the remaining market rate units. I think part of the allure of inclusionary zoning is that it creates the allusion of a free lunch. But here’s the thing: everything has a cost.

  2020.09.24

• The housing supply narrative is a sham

  

  That is the argument that Joshua Gordon, who is an assistant professor in the Simon Fraser University School of Public Policy, recently made in this opinion piece in the Globe and Mail. In his view, there’s no evidence to suggest that housing supply can actually help housing affordability. It’s just something that developers throw around to “stymie action on the demand-side” and to help with their rezoning efforts. Really, the housing problem is due to intense demand from foreign buyers, investors, and from “high rental demand.”

  Now, as many of you know, I am a developer, and not a professor. So you can take this post however you would like. But I do have a few thoughts.

  One, I think it’s an oversimplification to argue that there have been no regulatory changes over the last decade that have meaningfully and negatively impacted the supply of new housing. To give you one example, this fall, development levies in Toronto will complete a phase-in that has seen them double over the last couple of years. Almost a quarter of the price of a new residential condominium now goes to pay government fees and taxes. This has an impact on supply, even if the “regulatory environment” hasn’t necessarily changed.

  Two, I don’t buy the argument that, “surrounding cities have also seen rapid price appreciation and it’s easier to build there, so housing supply mustn’t be the problem.” Building outside of cities like Toronto and Vancouver isn’t necessarily easier. In fact, in some cases it can be more difficult if they’re not accustomed to more progressive urban infill-type developments.

  Three, it’s important to keep in mind that we have a financing structure in place that biases the types of homes (specifically residential condominiums) that get built. This approach is designed to mitigate financial risk, but it also means that investors serve an important function in the delivery of new housing. I’m not saying that the system is perfect; but I am saying that things are maybe not as simple as they may seem.

  Four, just because there are cities with lots of single-detached homes and relatively affordable housing, I don’t think we can safely assume that single-family land use policies have no impact on supply and pricing in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. In fact, I would argue the opposite. This probably goes to show you the importance of an elastic housing supply. Indeed, some of the most affordable housing markets are dominated by low-rise houses precisely because it is a typology that is quicker and cheaper to build than most urban infill housing.

  Finally, I’m not sure why anyone would consider high rental demand and a strong labor market to be symptomatic of a problem. Isn’t that what you usually want out of cities? You want there to be an abundance of good jobs that pay people money so that they can, you know, have a life and consume things like housing. But maybe that’s just the way that I look at things. I am a developer after all.

  Photo by Wiktor Karkocha on Unsplash

  2020.09.14

• A new supertall by Herzog & de Meuron

  

  This week, Alex Bozikovic (of the Globe and Mail) dropped the news that a new supertall by Herzog & de Meuron is being planned for the northwest corner of Bay and Bloor here in Toronto. The developers are Kroonenberg Group and ProWinko, both of which are based / have their roots in the Netherlands. At 87 storeys and 324 meters, it would be the tallest building in Canada if it were built today. The proposal includes retail, office, and residential uses.

  The first thing that everybody is talking about is the tower’s slenderness ratio (the upper floors are said to be about 7,300 square feet). I’m not a structural engineer, but the structural engineers that I do know are telling me that this tower will almost certainly require a tuned mass damper at the top of the building for lateral stiffness. The tower is very narrow in its east-west direction (see below) and so it will perform as a kind of “sail” in the wind. But as New York and other cities have shown us, this can be done.

  

  Another feature of this building is its double skin facade. As far as I know, this would be the first residential building in Toronto to have one (please correct me if I’m wrong). In fact, the only building that I can think of off the top of my head is the Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto by Behnisch Architekten and architectsAlliance. (For the record, and as far as I know, I am not related to the donor for this building — but what a great last name.)

  Usually the idea behind a double skin facade is to create an air cavity between both skins and then ventilate it. To reduce cooling loads in the summer, shading devices are also usually added within this air cavity. The system works by trapping and then extracting solar heat gain before it reaches the inside of the building. Engineers and real architects tell me that this generally works a lot better than a typical interior blind, because at that point you’ve already let a lot of the heat inside of your conditioned space.

  I am a big fan of ambition. And this project is certainly ambitious. For more about the proposal, check out the Globe and Mail.

  Update: This project is being done in collaboration with Quadrangle Architects of Toronto.

  Images: Herzog & de Meuron

  2020.06.04