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: hong kong

  • Roncesvalles is a great, single-sided, street

    Roncesvalles Avenue is a successful north-south main street in the west end of Toronto. I say successful, because it is truly a great street. It has transit, bike lanes, a fine-grained built form, and lots of interesting retail:

    But it is somewhat unique in that a large section of it is a one-sided retail street. Meaning, it looks like this:

    This obviously isn’t a fatal flaw. It remains a wonderful street. And there are lots of examples of thriving one-sided retail streets. Ocean Drive in Miami Beach immediately comes to mind (notwithstanding the fact that locals tend not to go to it).

    But conventional retail wisdom does dictate that two sides are better than one. Consider this 2023 report by Cushman & Wakefield ranking the top global main streets across the world. All of the streets that I have been to before are two-sided:

    • 5th Avenue in New York between 49th and 60th (above 60th is, incidentally, when the street converts to single-sided because of Central Park)
    • Montenapoleone in Milan
    • The main street of Tsim Sha Tsui in Hong Kong
    • New Bond Street in London
    • Avenues des Champs-Élysées in Paris
    • Grafton Street in in Dublin
    • Passeig de Gracia in Barcelona
    • Bloor Street in Toronto

    These are all two-sided retail streets.

    None of this is to say that the west side of Roncesvalles has nothing going on. It has a diverse mixture of uses, including churches, libraries, apartments, and many other things. But I think there is still an argument to be made that it has been hamstrung by restrictive zoning.

    That said, Roncevalles is defined as a “major street” in Toronto’s Official Plan and so it does fall under the city’s new Major Street Study. Maybe that changes things.

  • Population-weighted densities, compared

    Boy, population densities can be so misleading. The typical approach is to just take the number of people and divide it by a given area. This then gives you something like X number of “people per square kilometer.” The problem with this approach is that there are countless factors that can skew your result.

    Hong Kong, for instance, is really dense. But as a city, it also has a lot of green space, mountains, and other undeveloped areas. Only about a quarter of Hong Kong’s land is developed. So when you divide total people by its administrative boundary area, it is going to appear less dense than it really is.

    One alternative approach is to use a method known as population-weighted density. The way this works is that you take the average densities of smaller more granular subareas and then weight them by the population of each subarea. It is a little more complicated to calculate, but the overall intent is to try and capture a density figure that more accurately reflects what the average person experiences on the ground.

    And this is exactly the method that Jonathan Nolan decided to use in his new website CityDensity.com. What his site allows you to do is compare population-weighted densities across various cities, and then see how it tapers off as you move outward from their city centers.

    Once again, it is hard to beat Paris’ supremely dense mid-rise built form:

    Well, that is, until you check out Hong Kong:

    Charts: CityDensity.com

  • More lights on buildings!

    Back in undergrad, I spent a summer living and working in Taipei and Hong Kong. It was my first time being in either of these cities and I absolutely loved it. I was studying architecture. I was really developing my love of big cities. And these felt like two very real and big cities.

    Below is a cheesy tourist photo that I paid someone to take of me from the Kowloon Pier. I still have access to it because obviously my mom has it framed and prominently displayed in her kitchen:

    I’m sharing this photo because one of the things that really stood out to me about Hong Kong, in particular, was how they lit their buildings. There were neon signs (which is something that Hong Kong is, or least was, famous for); lights shining up into the sky (bad, I know); and full light shows and animations across entire building elevations.

    I immediately thought to myself: “Why don’t we have fun like this? Especially considering that Toronto can get kind of dark during the winter.”

    Well, some twenty years later, we are now starting to have more lights. We fought hard for our placemaking sign at Junction House. The CN Tower has since been illuminated. And most recently, we got 160 Front Street West. But it turns out that building lights can be a little divisive:

    My view is exactly what it was when I first landed in hot and humid Hong Kong. And so I respectfully disagree with Jocelyn Squires (though I have great admiration for her work). Architectural lighting adds color and dynamism to our cities. It can also help our cities from all looking the same.

    Let’s stop being so conservative and have some fun. Nice work, 160 Front.

  • The global cities attracting talent, visitors, and investment

    Earlier this month, Resonance Consultancy published its 2024 World’s Best Cities ranking. Or, in their words: its definitive power ranking of the 100 global cities that it believes are shaping tomorrow.

    These are always fun to flip through, which is I guess why people do them and why people look at them; but I do think it’s important to look at the underlying methodologies. Otherwise, what does “world’s best” even really mean?

    In this case, they’re looking at global cities through the lens of three key categories: livability, lovability, and prosperity. More specifically though, the report looks at factors that are demonstrated to have moderate to strong correlations with attracting talent, visitors, and/or businesses.

    This makes it distinct from rankings that are more focused on things like livability. Because according to Resonance, factors such as commute times, crime, and housing affordability don’t tend to correlate strongly (at least in the short-term) with a city’s ability to attract talent, tourism, and investment.

    While this may seem a bit counterintuitive, it does also make sense. People don’t move to London because they’re looking for affordable housing and a reasonable commute. They move to London because they want to be in the center of the world.

    And yes, London tops their power ranking:

    The top of this ranking isn’t all that surprising. It’s the usual suspects. But I continue to be impressed by how quickly Dubai has transformed itself into a top global city. Also impressive is how Dublin punches above its weight of just over 500,000 people.

    I am medium surprised to see Hong Kong nowhere on this first page (there are another 65 cities not shown here). It usually features as a top global city. But presumably this is the result of Beijing meddling. People are looking elsewhere — like Singapore.

    For the full list of cities and to download a copy of the report, click here.

  • Toward the childless city

    There is a common narrative that, when it comes time to start a family and have kids, you should probably consider moving to the suburbs. Sure, you’ll have a painful commute, but you’ll get more space for your money, and maybe you’ll end up with better kids.

    I don’t know, obviously not everyone agrees with this. I certainly don’t.

    But it is something that commonly happens and, in many cities, it is now happening more often. Here is a map from the Centre for London showing the change in the proportion of households with at least one dependent child from 2001 to 2021:

    A darker borough means that it lost households with at least one child. And a lighter borough means that it gained more kids. Why this is concerning is that it means the trendline is toward more, and not less, childless cities. Here’s an excerpt from a recent FT article:

    A future with dwindling numbers of children is one many cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC, are grappling with. In Hong Kong, for every adult over 65 there are, to put it crudely, 0.7 children, and in Tokyo it is even fewer (0.5).

    Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. And we know the main drivers:

    Randal Cremer is one of several planned primary school closures and mergers in inner London triggered by low birth rates, families moving away because of expensive childcare, Brexit, and parents re-evaluating their lives during the pandemic. The biggest factor, says Riley, is that “housing is just becoming unaffordable”. Philip Glanville, mayor of Hackney, calls it “the acute affordability crisis”.

    So how do we start to solve this? Here are a few ideas that we recently talked about on the blog, but it is by no means an exhaustive list. In my opinion, this is a problematic trend that deserves a lot more attention. Because cities are at their best when they work for everyone — from the young to the old.

  • Hong Kong wants to be a digital asset hub

    Today, June 1, is an important day for crypto and Hong Kong. The city just lifted its crypto ban and is once again allowing retail trading.

    Now, there’s a lot of speculation about what this will ultimately mean for the city and for Asia, given that Beijing is a crypto hater (all crypto transactions have been banned in China since 2021).

    Some think that this could be a leading indicator for a softening Chinese position on crypto; while the cynics think that this reinstatement could be short lived given that Beijing remains a hater.

    Whatever the outcome, I think it is noteworthy that Hong Kong is trying to reestablish itself as a global hub for digital assets and that it believes crypto is here to stay.

    It is also a good reminder that, even though the herd has moved onto AI, there’s still important work happening beneath many of the mainstream headlines.

    My own conviction and activities around crypto haven’t changed over the last year, and so I’m happy to see cities like Hong Kong working to reassert themselves in this space.

  • Wealthiest cities in the world

    According to this annual survey by Henley & Partners (first chart from Bloomberg), these are the top 10 wealthiest cities in the world when you count the number of high-net-worth individuals (i.e. people with investable wealth greater than US$1 million):

    However, if you instead count billionaires, the top city flips from New York City to the Bay Area (which includes San Francisco and all of Silicon Valley). This isn’t all that surprising.

    Also not surprising is the precipitous decline in the number of HNWIs residing in Hong Kong. From 2012 to 2022, the number declined by 27%. That said, a bunch of other cities fared even worse. The city that lost the most millionaires over this same decade was Moscow. It declined by 44%.

    For those of you wondering about Toronto, we placed 12th, just after Chicago, with 105,200 millionaires, 193 centi-millionaires, and 18 billionaires:

    The next city in Canada on the list is Vancouver, and following that is Montreal:

    It is interesting to see how much further behind Montreal places with these metrics given that it is an urban region with about 1.6x the population of that of Vancouver’s.

    Also interesting — given its size and global importance — is Paris (18th when it comes to HNWIs):

    However, when it comes to seasonal draw, Paris is second only to Miami, which appears to be the undisputed global destination for rich people in the winter. Paris has 126 centi-millionaire residents, but during its peak holiday month (presumably summer), this number is believed to increase to over 300:

    Finally, looking at Park City, Utah, it has 8 permanent centi-millionaires and this number is thought to increase to over 100 during the winter snowboarding season. And to be clear, this transient population figure only includes people who own a second home there. It does not include rich people paying US$3,700 per night to stay at Deer Valley. That’s pretty good for a small town of only 8,500 permanent residents.

    To check out the full list of 97 cities, click here.

  • Calm down, Dubai

    Knight Frank just published the 17th edition of its annual “The Wealth Report.” I have spoken about this report many times before on the blog because I generally find them really interesting. So today I’d like to share two items from this latest one.

    The first item is their most recent Prime International Residential Index (PIRI). What this does is track prime residential prices across 100 key city, sun, and ski locations. “Prime”, in case you are wondering, is defined as the most desirable and most expensive properties in each market — generally the top 5%.

    Look at Dubai go:

    When I see a chart like this I usually start at the top and then immediately start scanning for Toronto. Here, it’s more or less in the middle with a 4.1% increase. Totally reasonable. Prime property in Auckland and Wellington, on the other hand, didn’t fair as well in 2022.

    The second item is this very wonderful diagram showing flight connectivity before Covid (12 months to March 2020) and then post-Covid (12 months to December 2022):

    The way to read this diagram is that the most connected cities — ranked by the number and quality of flight connections — get pushed toward the center. They also get bigger. Less connected cities, on the other hand, slide toward the edges. All of the cities also generally gravitate toward their main regional connections.

    The most obvious change is the greatly weakened connectivity of Chinese cities. This is not surprising given their zero-Covid approach. Moscow also seems to get rightly pushed out to the side.

    Another story is the continued rise of both Singapore (to the likely detriment of Hong Kong) and Dubai. I have only been to Dubai once, and I couldn’t figure out how to navigate its sea of roads and highways, or how to locate an actual city center where humans walk around (though the historic Bur Dubai area was interesting).

    But there is no denying that Dubai has become a pretty important global city.

  • Hong Kong is building new “light public housing” — why?

    We have spoken before about how the average wait time for public housing in Hong Kong is now over 6 years. This is a problem for the quarter million people who are on this list, and so the city has decided to start building modular housing as a kind of stopgap:

    The city has embarked on a $3.3 billion plan to build about 30,000 temporary apartments over the next five years, which Housing Secretary Winnie Ho has said is a “very important social project.” The aim of the program is to give people an option to move out of cramped quarters while waiting for public housing. Critics say it only shows the government’s inability to deliver enough permanent homes.

    I think many would agree that “light public housing”, which is what this is being called, is probably better than no public housing. But is this really the most effective move? According to some sources, this light varietal may actually cost more to build than their typical public housing.

    So why even bother? Is it just speed? I’m not sure.

    Also, it is interesting to note that even in a city as dense, built out, and in need of housing as Hong Kong, finding support for new development can be a challenge:

    “We understand that Hong Kong needs land to build public housing for people in need, so we never objected until this time,” said Andy Ng, an accountant who bought an apartment in the Upper RiverBank project early last year. The government is squeezing thousands of people on a single plot of land without planning or consultation, he added. “The district simply can’t stomach so many people.”

  • What is the correlation between urban density and housing affordability?

    There’s lots of data out there to suggest that there is a correlation between urban density and housing unaffordability. Take Hong Kong. It is very dense, and also one of the most expensive housing markets in the world. But I think the real question is: does urban density actually cause housing unaffordability, or do the two simply tend to be correlated when you plot a country’s biggest cities?

    One the one hand, there are factors that do drive up home prices when you build more densely. Building a reinforced-concrete high-rise is always going to be more expensive on a per square foot basis than building a wood-framed bungalow. But of course, the former also uses land a lot more efficiently, which is what you need to do in big and supply-constrained cities.

    Michael Lewyn’s view (credit to Robert Wright for sending me the article) is that density is incorrectly used as a scapegoat to fight compact development. It does not actually cause higher rents. One counter example he gives is that of Manhattan, which went from 2.3 million people in 1910 to just under 1.7 million in 2020. In other words, it got less dense, while at the same time its rents grew exponentially.

    Like most important city matters, the answer is complicated. But this is an interesting topic that I think we should spend more time on here.