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: NIMBY

  • Density vs. infrastructure in Liberty Village

    A beautiful new 43-storey rental building was just approved in Toronto’s Liberty Village neighborhood. More info about the project can be found, here. Not surprisingly, some people in the community were against it. Here is a recent article that blogTO published talking about people who live in high-rises not wanting a new high-rise next to them.

    One argument that is being made is that the neighborhood is already full. It has reached its density limit. We also hear this about the City of Toronto as a whole. But we know this isn’t true. Architect Naama Blonder recently did a study that found we could fit another 12 million people within our boundaries with more efficient land use policies.

    This particular site in Liberty Village is also about 400 meters from a future subway stop on the Ontario Line. So it is exactly where we should be putting more density. The problem today is that the area is suffering from a massive infrastructure deficit. The road network is inadequate and the King streetcar hasn’t been prioritized.

    It’s no wonder the area feels full. But the reality is that there are lots of examples of highly livable neighborhoods from around the world with much higher population densities. The difference is that they have the right infrastructure, the right public realms, and the right modal splits.

    Liberty Village will get there as well and it’s already underway. For a preview of the future, check out the City of Toronto’s Public Realm Strategy for the area. It was published in April 2024 and it includes things like new streets, new mid-block connections, and new parks. It is what the area needs and it’s exciting to see it happening.

  • Dangerously positive precedents

    This is the battle that is now playing out across Toronto — and many other cities — as we look to intensify our existing communities; even in the ones sitting on higher-order transit. Cities rightly want to see it happen. But local ratepayers do not.

    From the Globe and Mail:

    “This project is in no way gentle intensification,” said the architect Terry Montgomery, representing the powerful local group the Annex Residents Association. “It will set a dangerous precedent for all areas in the city which currently [are zoned for] low-scale residential-buildings.”

    It’s not clear whether that legal argument is true. At the meeting, City of Toronto planning manager David Driedger and director Oren Tamir – who, to their great credit, were supporting the development – said it would not set a precedent.

    But if it did, why would that be “dangerous”? It is commonsensical. The Lowther site has two subway stations within an eight-minute walk. Toronto’s Line 1 and Line 2 intersect right here. This is one of the best-located, best-connected places in all of Canada.

    Alex Bozikovic is, of course, right. This is commonsensical. 

    If our goals are to create more homes, improve housing affordability, reduce traffic congestion, and make us overall a more sustainable city, then there’s no better place to build than on top of transit within our already built-up areas.

  • San Francisco is highly proficient at making housing more expensive

    If you’re looking to block new development, drive up the cost of housing, and appear “progressive” all at the same time, one generally effective technique is to do it under the guise of historic preservation. San Francisco is really good at this, as are many other cities. And it works because, who doesn’t think that history is important?

    This exact thing just transpired in San Francisco, where earlier this year Supervisor Aaron Peskin passed an ordinance enacting new density controls for most development in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District, the Jackson Square Historic District, and the Jackson Square Historic District Extension (solid neighborhood names).

    Of course, sometimes you can run into resistance when you’re trying to push through new anti-housing policies. And in this case, San Francisco Mayor London Breed actually vetoed Peskin’s bill. In a letter dated March 14, 2024, she wrote:

    Restricting new housing runs counter to the goals of our Housing Element, which the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved just over a year ago. It also runs counter to what we need to do to make this City a place that creates opportunities for new homes for the people who need them today and for future generations growing up in San Francisco.

    This ordinance passes off anti-housing policy in the guise of historic protections. Existing rules already protect against impacts to historic resources. I believe we can add new homes while also supporting and improving the vibrancy of our unique neighborhoods. Many areas of San Francisco, including eastern neighborhoods like the South of Market, Potrero Hill, and the Mission, have also already removed density limits to encourage new housing.

    However, her veto was ultimately overridden by the Board of Supervisors and so, as far as I understand it, the above density controls stand.

    What’s particularly frustrating about this outcome — sarcasm now firmly off — is that it so obviously reeks of NIMBY selfishness. Here’s an elaborate infographic created by Max Dubler explaining what many in San Francisco believe is the real reason behind this downzoning:

    Here is also a street view image from the area, along The Embarcadero:

    But like I said, San Francisco seems to be really adept at this sort of maneuvering.

  • LVMH’s Cheval Blanc Hotel faces opposition in Beverly Hills

    I am sure that most people aren’t going to feel bad for LVMH, but it is facing some opposition in trying to bring the first Cheval Blanc Hotel to North America. Last year, Beverly Hills City Council approved the hotel development on Rodeo Drive, but since then, enough signatures were collected that a special election is going to be held later this month for the ~22,000 residents who are registered to vote in Beverly Hills. And from the sounds of it, the results will decide the fate of the project.

    As I understand it, there are two mains groups that are upset:

    1. A union representing hotel workers
    2. Local area residents

    The official message from group #1 is that they want affordable housing. But there is speculation that they just want the hotel to be unionized. I don’t don’t, so let’s move on to group #2. Why would residents be opposed to this project?

    One way to think about this is that LVMH is trying to build a fancy new $2,000 per night hotel in one of the richest cities in the US, on one of its most luxurious streets. So, you would think that there would be a fit and that more than a few rich people would be excited about such a development. I guess this is true — and Council did vote in favor last year — but clearly there are other concerns:

    …some people were unhappy a 109-room hotel, framed by Rodeo Drive, Little Santa Monica Boulevard and Beverly Drive, would rise nine stories on one side and tower over surrounding retail and commercial spaces sitting at three and four stories high. Four buildings would have to be razed, and the idea of more traffic coming to the area was unsettling.

    It seems to be about scale:

    …Cheval Blanc opponents want to keep that small town vibe. “The area is charming and beautiful right now, and, if and when they are able to put that project out there, it will not be. It is very nice to be around low-rise buildings. You can sit at a sidewalk café in Beverly Hills and look across the street and see the hills. It is a very good feeling,” said Darian Bojeaux, an attorney who has lived in the city for 35 years and signed the petitions launching a special election. “Let them build a code-compliant hotel that is three stories high. Let them build something nice that doesn’t ruin the city.”

    Here’s an aerial of said small town vibe for context (I’ve marked the number of proposed storeys):

    What’s interesting about this situation is that it seems to isolate the concerns. Because what is being proposed here is an obviously compatible use. It is a rich thing in an area for rich people. Residents don’t seem to be saying that this is a problem. Instead, it is height that could potentially “ruin the city.” (Ignore for a second that there’s already an office building of similar height across the street.)

    What this tells me is that if you’re thinking about proposing nine storeys of Ferragamo and Balenciaga, that’s probably not small town enough. Saint Laurent needs to be no more than three.

  • Peaks and plains

    On the exact same day last week, the Toronto Star published two articles about housing. The first one, this one here, is about how “Toronto has protected huge parts of the city from anything denser than detached or semi-detached houses” and how this has resulted in an “uneven city.” The second article, this opinion piece, is about the “many repercussions to replacing little bungalows.” And one of the implied repercussions is that 3-storey sun blockers that invade privacy might actually kill people. Hmm.

    In effect, these are the two sides of this debate. If you zoom out and look at Toronto, you will largely see a contrasting and uneven city of tall buildings and low-rise housing. Instead of building like Paris, which is consistently mid-rise — but also far denser on average than Toronto — we have chosen peaks and large plains to constrain new housing. And if you zoom in across those plains, you’ll find many areas without sidewalks, along with people, such as the author of the second article above, who believe that nothing more than a single storey is appropriate for human health.

    All of this has persisted because it has been politically popular. But time continues to show us that it actually runs counter to our goals of building an inclusive and globally competitive city region. Thankfully, it feels like we are finally reaching a tipping point.

    Photo by Jackson Case on Unsplash

  • Honks against housing in San Diego’s University City

    The University area is one of 53 community planning areas in the City of San Diego. And this one, as the name suggests, houses the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which is at the northern end of the blue transit line.

    The last time the University Community Plan was updated was in 1987, and so it’s an old plan and it is currently being redone to better align with the City’s current strategic plan — which includes things like “creating homes for all of us” and “championing sustainability.”

    The final draft community plan won’t be available until later this year, but there are two draft scenarios available for download. Here’s what Scenario A looks like:

    The “T” circles are transit stops on the Blue Line (which runs south to downtown and then to the Mexico border), the olive green areas are institutional (UCSD, hospital, etc.), and the purple areas are “urban villages” with densities that go as high as 218 dwelling units per acre (darkest purple). For the other areas, please refer to the legend.

    Now let’s put this residential density into some sort of context. One acre = 43,560 square feet. So we’re talking about 218 homes on every 43,560 square feet of land. For context, our mid-rise Junction House project is 151 homes and our site area is approximately 22,000 square feet (about 0.5 acres). That puts us at roughly 302 homes per acre — more than what is proposed here.

    In total the revised plan could allow for somewhere between 35,000 to 56,000 new homes in the University City area. Not surprisingly, the community has reacted by organizing rallies, such as this one, here, called “Honks against housing”:

    (I used a screenshot because embedded tweets don’t seem to show up properly in my email newsletter.)

    This is, again, not unexpected. And all of the typical things could be said about incumbent residents opposing new homes on top of an existing transit line, next to a major university. But what stands out to me about this protest is its format.

    These residents are worried that high-rises will destroy their community. So presumably they are looking to get the word out to as many people as possible. And one of the ways they have decided to do that is stand on the side of a busy road and appeal to people in their cars.

    Ironically, I think this actually reinforces the need for an updated Community Plan. Because it speaks to the car-oriented nature of this community and the need for better land use planning around its existing transit stations.

    In my view, the line of thinking here should not be, “this is going to destroy our community. How will our roads ever accommodate 35,000 new homes?” It should be, “how do we better plan this community so that our next generation of residents have the luxury not to have to drive everywhere?”

    If you’d like to offer constructive feedback on this plan, I’m told that you can email Nancy Graham at nhgraham@sandiego.gov.

  • A template for opposing new housing

    Okay, I really don’t want to make this — using ChatGPT to write my blog posts for me — a habit. But I was genuinely curious what would happen if I asked it to: “write a stereotypical NIMBY letter opposing a new housing development.” Here’s what it generated.

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.

    First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.

    Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.

    Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.

    In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    Sincerely, [Your Name]

    I must say that I’m impressed. It is a solid 5-paragraph letter that follows a tried and true formula. First, the entire letter is sandwiched between thinly veiled statements around the importance of housing. Both the introduction and conclusion speak to “the need for affordable housing.”

    And then in the middle of the letter, it hits on the holy trinity of opposition arguments: (1) overburdened/inadequate infrastructure, (2) neighborhood character, and (3) property values. I’m not sure there’s much to improve on here. These computers are good.

    So if you happen to need one of these, you may want to try ChatGPT.

  • Social media as zoning review board

    This is an interesting article about the neighborhood-based social network, Nextdoor, and how it has become a tool for housing politics:

    Overall, activists both for and against more housing regard Nextdoor as an increasingly influential and even critical tool in the fight, which conflicts with the platform’s marketing as a friendly, kinder social media. Rather than being the neighborhood bulletin board, Nextdoors around the country are looking more like the local zoning commission hearing.

    Housing debate is no stranger to social media, but in the case of Nextdoor, the audience gets focused down to the scale of a neighborhood. And that clearly changes things.

    For the full article, click here.

  • 2 storeys not 12

    I came across this poster — related to this development application — over the weekend:

    And I think it raises a number of important questions:

    • Is 2 storeys appropriate for next to a subway station and next to an existing mid-rise building?
    • Is a mid-rise building truly unprecedented in this context? See below.
    • Are mid-rise homes inappropriate for “residential streets?”
    • How does building height factor into flood plain concerns? Wouldn’t lot coverage be more relevant?
    • And when does a mid-rise become a “high-rise?”

    For more context, here’s the proposal and its immediate surroundings:

    I fully appreciate that there’s little incentive to support new development in a place where you already live — even if you happen to live in a similarly-scaled building across the street. And I am sure that I’ll receive a number of emails following this post.

    But optimizing the use of land around our existing transit stations is one of the best things we can do as city builders.

    Update: I have redacted the contact information on the above poster.

  • It’s time to build, but not here

    Oof.

    Let’s assume for a second that you penned an article back in April 2020 called, “It’s time to build.” And in this article, you argued, among other things, that we’re not building nearly enough housing and that home prices are skyrocketing as a result.

    Now let’s assume that a new multi-family zoning overlay is being proposed for your own neighborhood in an attempt to increase said housing supply and alleviate some of the concerns around home prices. And in response to this proposal, you pen this:

    One might call this being hypocritical. But I’m not here to name call. I think the real lesson is what Jerusalem Demsas points out in her recent article, “The Billionaire’s Dilemma.”

    What we have is a macro-micro disconnect that policy makers need to be more aware of. At the macro level we know what we should be doing in order to achieve our stated objectives. But if we allow people at the micro level to veto these efforts, they often will, and sometimes using ALL CAPS.