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: new york city

  • Should we be building more live/work spaces?

    Lately, I’ve become very interested in live/work uses. This is not something that I have written much about over the years, but it is now on my mind for a few reasons.

    One, many of us tried working from home for the first time over the last 21 months or so, and my understanding is that some people enjoy it. It’s not my preference, but I don’t represent everyone.

    Two, photography is a hobby of mine and I’ve always thought it would be super fun to have a studio space to play around with on the weekends. If any of you have any suggestions or spaces available, please let me know.

    Three, there are lots of urban conditions where retail doesn’t work, but a bit more ground-floor animation would be nice. This is commonly how live/work uses have been used. That said, I can think of a number of unsuccessful examples of this in Toronto. It’s tough to execute on.

    And four, there are lots of instances of older non-conforming spaces throughout our cities serving this purpose: inexpensive spaces for people to live, work, and create in. Though often “illegal”, I believe they are important for fostering new ideas.

    Here’s an example that I was reading about this morning in The Spaces and that triggered this blog post. It’s about sculptor Andreas Anastasis and his live/work loft on the west side of New York.

    I don’t know what building this is and whether or not work functions are technically permitted (presumably they are), but it’s an example of what I’m talking about. Take a spin through the video embedded above. If you can’t see it, click here.

    Should we be designing and creating our new residential spaces with multiple uses and this kind of flexibility in mind? Is there a big enough market for it? Does it devalue the pure residential aspect of the building knowing that your next door neighbor might have an office in their space, an artist studio, or a short-term Airbnb rental?

    These are some of the things that I’ve been thinking about and I would love to hear thoughts in the comment section below.

    Photo: Maxwell Schiano via The Spaces

  • Building on rooftops in New York City is really tough

    Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is a pretty wealthy guy and so it is fairly safe to assume that he could choose to live almost anywhere. For some people the ideal might be a low-rise house with a backyard in the suburbs.

    But since 2018, Ackman has chosen a kind of penthouse apartment on the roof of a 1920’s co-op building in Manhattan’s Upper West Side. It was formerly the home of author Nancy Friday and Ackman supposedly purchased it for $22.5 million.

    He is now looking to demolish the penthouse and build a new two-storey residence designed by architect Norman Foster. The design looks like this, which kind of reminds me of Philip Johnson’s The Glass House:

    Today it was in the news that Ackman has been having a fun time trying to convince his co-op board that a new set of glass boxes on the roof their building is a good idea. FT reported that the project has created “an atmosphere of fear and distrust among residents in the building.”

    I’m not exactly sure what it is about this proposal that is causing fear and distrust but Ackman is on record saying that he thinks this isn’t about heritage preservation or architectural integrity; it’s about people not wanting the disruption that comes along with construction. Fair.

    One way to test this, I suppose, is to propose something more traditional or similar to what’s already there. But I suspect that the other dynamic at play here is simply that he is a rich guy with a starchitect trying to build something cool.

    Building things is tough.

  • Largest US cities grew faster and became more diverse over the last decade

    The last decade has been pretty good for many cities. Recent 2020 Census data tells us that of the 50 largest cities in the US, 46 of them grew their population over the last 10 years. On average, these 50 cities grew by about 8.5%, compared to 5.6% for the decade between 2000-2010.

    As you might expect, the fastest growing cities tended to be in the south and the west. The top 3 fastest growing cities over the last decade were Fort Worth (24%), Austin (21.7%), and Seattle (21.1%). The cities with the biggest population declines were Detroit (-10.5%), Baltimore (-5.7%), Milwaukee (-3%).

    It’s important to keep in mind that city boundaries can skew these numbers depending on how they are drawn. A declining “city” population doesn’t necessarily mean that the broader urban area is losing people. Though it does still tell you something about the “city.”

    Another thing that happened over the last decade is that most of the largest US cities continued to become more diverse. In 2000, white populations were a majority (>50%) in 25 of the 50 largest cities. This dropped to 17 cities in 2010 and then 14 cities last year (2020). Meaning that 36 of the largest cities are now “white minority” cities.

    For more data check out this recent article from Brookings.

  • OMA New York has just published its first book

    OMA NY — the New York office of OMA — has just published its first monograph. It’s called OMA NY: Search Term. For those of you who may be unfamiliar, Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) is an architecture firm that was founded by Rem Koolhaas in Rotterdam in 1975.

    The firm is considered to be one of the most influential in the world because of their projects, the writing and thinking of Rem Koolhaas, and because of how many notable architects developed their craft under his tutelage.

    When I was in architecture school, OMA was a firm that people wanted to work at and I had friends who did. You weren’t paid very much from what I remember, but people put up with that because you wanted OMA on your resume and you wanted to learn things from Rem (apparently he’s a big fan of Raisin Bran in the morning).

    The New York office of OMA is run by Shohei Shigematsu and Jason Long who are both partners. The practice started out as an American outpost, but it has become more independent over the years and, from what I can gather, it now prides itself on having its own attitudes and views on architecture and urbanism.

    This monograph is about that. Twenty radical projects from the firm’s new guard. It also includes interviews from people like Virgil Abloh (Off-White). I don’t have a copy yet, but if you’re an architecture and urbanism person, you probably want this one on your bookshelf.

    Image: Rizzoli

  • [Film] CROSSROADS: Life in the Resilient City

    Five cities. Five stories.

    Here is a short film by Nils Clauss and Neil Dowling, which recently premiered at the Seoul Biennale of Architecture and Urbanism. (If you can’t see the embedded video above, click here.) The film is named after this year’s Seoul Biennale (which is going on right now until the end of October) and focuses on five crossroads of city life that were put forward by French architect Dominique Perrault: above/below, heritage/modern, craft/digital, natural/artificial, and safe/risk.

    To illustrate these urban crossroads, the filmmakers visit New York, Seoul, Mumbai, Paris, and Nairobi. But instead of interviewing so-called “experts”, these crossroads are examined from the perspective of people just living through them. The documentary is very well done. And having just come back from Paris, I can say that I think they chose the right city to tackle the heritage/modern crossroad.

    To close things out, I would like to share one screenshot from the film. Here you can see an ingenious little urban table that slips over a street bollard. It’s just perfect. There is so much that can be done to better activate our streets and public spaces.

  • Legendary literary hangouts in New York City

    The New York Times’ recent celebration of the city’s “legendary literary hangouts” is an important reminder of one of the great features of city life. Cities have a way of mixing different people together and inspiring the creation of great things. And sometimes that happens rather informally. (That’s one of the reasons why there’s tremendous value in the nighttime economy.) Tina Jordan writes: “You might think of them as solitary creatures, furiously scribbling or typing alone, but as long as there have been writers in New York City, they have socialized together in an assortment of bars, restaurants, apartments and clubs.”

    For the full thing, click here.

  • To stepback or not to stepback

    I was riding my bike on Bloor Street along the north edge of High Park over the weekend. And in between cyclists in spandex yelling at me for seemingly riding the wrong way in the bike lanes, I managed to safely snap this picture:

    It was a reminder of that thing we like to do in Toronto where we want lower-rise along our main streets and then we tuck the taller parts somewhere in the back so that we can pretend they are maybe not there. Here’s an aerial shot of the situation from Google Maps:

    It’s a very different condition from what you will find in New York along virtually all edges of Central Park:

    Now, New York and Toronto are not the same city. This much is obvious.

    But there is a grandeur and degree of urbanity that is present along Central Park that is not present along High Park. And I would argue that this feature isn’t exclusive to New York. It can be found in many other cities, including places like Montreal.

    I am sure that part of the rationale here on Bloor Street had to do with matching the lower-rise existing context. But we shouldn’t forget that the edges of public spaces are oftentimes just as important as the spaces themselves. Sometimes they can be even more important.

    So I thought I would put it out to all of you. To stepback or not to stepback. What do you think would be the most appropriate built form along this north edge of High Park? Leave a comment below.

  • Project Profile: 100 Franklin by DDG Partners and Palette Architecture

    100 Franklin is my kind of project. Developed by DDG Partners, 100 Franklin is a small boutique condominium project that was completed last year in New York’s Tribeca. From what I can tell, there are only 10 residences in the project, ranging from 1,427 to 3,673 square feet.

    A number of things are interesting about this project, particularly when you compare it to how and what we typically build in Toronto.

    One, it’s kind of an awkward site. It is made up of two triangular lots that one could have easily dismissed as being not all that developable. (Granted space is a precious commodity in Manhattan.) But DDG made it work (they have an in-house design team). They also managed to stitch the two buildings together so that they read as one big awesome street wall.

    Two, it’s only about 30,000 square feet. I mention this because, you don’t see a lot of development at this scale here in Toronto. With entitlements taking as long as they do (among other reasons), it can be a real challenge. So if you’re not capital constrained, you may as well take advantage of the economies of scale associated with going bigger.

    Three, I think it speaks to differing cultural attitudes around housing. By Toronto standards, these are very large suites. The average size of a new condominium in downtown Toronto is probably somewhere in the low 600s (square feet). I think that tells you a lot about who is buying and how they think about living in a multi-family building.

    Four, it’s downright just a beautiful building with some really terrific brickwork. For photos, check out here and here.

    Image: Robert Granoff via DDG Partners

  • Google opens first ever retail store in New York City

    Google just opened up its first ever retail store. It’s in Chelsea in New York City at the base of its offices in a building that the company owns. The space is about 5,000 square feet and it occupies a full city block.

    A collaboration with New York-architect, Suchi Reddy, the retail space is deliberately different from what you’ll find at an Apple store (though the broad intentions are arguably similar). Instead of sleek, metallic and futuristic, the focus here was on creating a warm and inviting space that feels more like a home. (Note the pale woods.)

    The approach is intended to make a statement about the role that technology, or at least Google’s technology, should play in our lives. It is about tech servicing humanity and not the other way around.

    FastCompany has a good article, here, that explains all of this.

    It is interesting to watch these spaces evolve into what we are now calling experiential retail or commerce. If you read the FastCompany article you’ll read about the work that Johns Hopkins University is doing on neuroaesthetics, which is the study of how spaces and aesthetics affect our bodies. That is how finely tuned these spaces have become.

    And it’s kind of what you need to do today. Consider the example of Microsoft’s retail stores, which launched in a clear attempt to mimic the successes that Apple has seen with its stores. They even looked somewhat similar. But then last year Microsoft announced that the company would be closing all of its stores.

    Why? Part of the problem is that they were too focused on just selling Microsoft products. And that, it would seem, can’t really be the main objective anymore. You also need to consider the experience. What story are we telling about our brand with our space, and is it compelling enough to standout?

    P.S. The first image at the top of this post is of their Google Translate booth. You walk in. Say something. And Google translates the hell out of it for you.

    Photos: Google

  • A story about oranges

    A friend of mine circulated this tweet storm over the weekend. It is an explanation of how NYC’s housing market works using the example of oranges. The author ends by saying that, “it is a parody and an exaggeration, but I promise you it’s not much of one.”

    The crux of this story about oranges is that if you don’t deliver enough to meet market demand, you’re going to invariably run into a problem of affordability. If people really want oranges, they are going to bid up the price of whatever oranges they can get their hands on. The same is true for housing.

    But there are, of course, some obvious differences between homes and oranges. People don’t live in oranges. And I would imagine that there are other ways to get your daily recommended intake of vitamin C.

    As far as I know, people also don’t buy oranges with the hope that they can derive a rental income stream and/or that they will be worth more tomorrow. And so I’m sure that many of you will be quick to point out that it is perhaps the speculative nature of housing that makes it different from most oranges.

    Still, there’s no denying that, in most cities around the world, we do a lot to make it exceedingly difficult to build new housing. We constrain supply — such that we perpetually underserve the market — and then we wonder why prices continue to rise.

    Disagree with this take? Let me know in the comment section below.