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

  • Multiple paths to a quick yes

    I have heard a number of people describe this blog as covering all that is new. That wasn’t my explicit goal when I started writing it. My goal was simply to focus on cities and all the wonderful things that shape them. But it turns that new ideas form a big part of that and that I am very interested in new ideas. Change is what moves the world forward.

    Of course, there is no shortage of new ideas. We all have brilliant ideas. Maybe you’re looking at Toronto’s public garbage bins right now and thinking to yourself, “You know what, I have some terrific ideas for how these could be greatly improved.” And chances are, your ideas are good ones. The problem, however, is that ideas are fleeting. The real challenge is bringing them to fruition before they die.

    So here are a few thoughts that came to mind this morning:

    • There is a difference between incremental improvements and directional/fundamental change. Generally speaking, we tend to be naturally better at ideas related to the former than the latter. When we look at a Toronto garbage bin on the street and see it overflowing with rubbish and see all its side panels swung open, we intuitively see the problems. But it is less common to think about, oh I don’t know, subterranean garbage networks for moving refuse around or networked robots that come out at night and tidy our streets with purple brooms. This is also why when we come up with something new like a horseless carriage or an iPhone, we often name them after the thing we already know and are familiar with, even though it probably undersells how meaningful the change is. It helps our minds make the leap.
    • Many organizations have separate decision making processes that depend on the above. Amazon, for example, likes to ensure that incremental improvements have “multiple paths to yes” within the company. Again, these are the more intuitive kind of changes and so you don’t want some brilliant, yet fragile, idea to get killed by some naysayer along the way. You want as many of them being implemented as possible. On the other hand, ideas that might change the direction of the company are typically slowed down and carefully deliberated. This is a common split. “Major decisions” go up to some greater governance body; whereas all other day-to-day decisions just get made on the fly by those “in the field”. This is one way to keep things moving quickly.
    • On a related note, venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote today about the virtues of small and flat partnerships when it comes to early-stage investing (but I don’t think the lesson only applies to this sector). In his view, the biggest venture winners — at least when it comes to early-stage companies — often come from the most “controversial and out there” ideas. And to make these sorts of bets it is helpful to have a small and flat team with a lot of trust. I found this particular insight really interesting because it implies that when you have the opposite — big and hierarchical organizations — you naturally start to lose your ability to experiment with non-consensus ideas. And so what you’re likely left with is just the intuitive and incremental stuff.
    • Recently, we also spoke about the argument that generations view change differently. Young people are often more open to new ideas, at least partially because they view it as a way for them to make their mark on the world. Older generations, on the other hand, often view change as a threat to their current position in the world. None of this is universally true, but think about how this often plays out with new housing. Young people view housing supply as a way for them to buy or rent something new and form their own household. Whereas already established households can view it as a threat to their community and their existing way of life.

    These are a broad set of thoughts. But if there are any lessons to extract from these bullet points it is perhaps these: One, consider the kind of decision that needs to be made. Is it something incremental and intuitive? Is it an obviously sound infill housing project? Because if so, you want multiple paths to a quick yes. And two, consider who gets a say and who controls the decision. Because the wrong group dynamic can kill even the best new ideas.

  • I was here first

    Connor Dougherty published this thoughtful piece about NIMBYs over the weekend in the New York Times. And it has been making the rounds online ever since.

    It is thoughtful in that Connor tries to understand what makes NIMBYs tick. And he does this by interviewing people like Susan Kirsch, a resident of Marin County, California who generally opposes all of the things that California is doing to try and address its housing shortage and who has been fighting a townhouse project in her neighborhood for the last 18 years.

    The developer, who is now 86, started the project in his 60s. In the article he is quoted saying that he’s either going to succeed or he’s going to die. It’s one or the other.

    What is clear is that we all see things differently. While some people might see new housing as serving an important need. Others see new development as running counter to environmentalism and good stewardship. Indeed, for some, there is no shortage of housing (even in cities that are growing in population). It’s simply a problem of too many investors buying and creating rental homes or too many Airbnbs or some other red herring.

    Whatever the case may be, it’s hard not to pay attention to quotes like this one:

    “From my backyard I see the hillside,” Ms. Kirsch wrote from her Hotmail account. “Explain how my property value is not deflated if open space is replace(d) with view-blocking, dense, unsightly buildings.”

    Look, we all get this. Nobody wants their views obstructed. Nobody wants more cars parked in their neighborhood. And nobody wants more dog shit in their local park, among many other things. But implicit in this statement is a view that certain people’s needs and desires are more important than those of others. I was here first. Too bad for you.

  • Our cities are full

    One of the most common objections to new housing is that the place is already too crowded and potentially even full. But Jerusalem Demsas’ recently article in The Atlantic about how much people seem to hate other people is a good reminder that the topic of overpopulation can be a complicated one.

    Because what are we really saying when we say a place is too crowded or full? Is it just that this particular neighborhood is full, or are we talking about entire cities being full?

    Moreover, who determines when a place is full? Berkeley, California is, for example, a hell of a lot less dense than a city like Paris. So if a place like Berkeley can be considered full by some people, what does that mean for Paris? Presumably it’s entirely unliveable.

    Or could it be that the entire world is simply full and we should be looking at more drastic measures to curb population growth (in the places that are actually reaching replacement-level fertility rates)?

    It’s all very complicated. Thankfully Demsas offers up some possible solutions in her article:

    We have, of course, discovered an elusive technology to allow more people to live on less land: It’s called an apartment building. And if people would like fewer neighbors competing for parking spaces, then they should rest assured that buses, trains, protected bike lanes, and maintained sidewalks are effective, cutting-edge inventions available to all.

    The rest of the article is just as good.

  • [Video] Are NIMBYs selfish?

    Peter Baugh tweeted this out on Monday. Essentially, he attended a community meeting for a new housing project in his neighborhood. He spoke in favor of the proposed development. And was then accused of being a developer shill. His comments were subsequently no longer allowed at this “public” meeting. I mean, how could anyone possibly be in favor of new urban housing? Surely he must be a developer “plant.”

    This is wrong, disappointing, and a whole host of other unsightly things. So today I thought I would share a recent City Beautiful video that asks: “Are NIMBYs selfish?” I have shared Dave Amos’ videos before. He’s an assistant professor of city planning at Cal Poly and a well known YouTuber. And I think this video does a great job explaining some of the tensions and trade-offs at play when it comes to development, particularly infill development.

    But as Dave clearly explains in the video, he is not a neutral actor when it comes to this topic. His view is that, yes, NIMBYs are selfish.

  • Destructive development?

    Planner Sean Hertel shared this (embedded above) on Twitter over the weekend. It is a lawn sign from Toronto’s Junction neighborhood that is calling for a stop to demolishing family houses for high rises.

    From what I can tell, this law sign is trying to communicate a few key messages.

    One, high-rises are monstrous beings that enjoy praying on innocent low-rise houses and squashing them with their feet, and sometimes their asymmetric hands.

    Two, it is mostly impossible to conceive of a world in Toronto where families live in high-rises and don’t live in grade-related housing with a backyard.

    And three, there is little value in building more, rather than less, housing in order to help with affordability concerns. Perhaps the thinking is that it needs to be low-rise affordable housing, or nothing.

    With all of this said, let’s do a little thought exercise today on the blog.

    Let’s for a second assume that there aren’t any high-rises proposed in the Junction; only European-scaled mid-rise buildings that sit on the area’s main avenues and back onto low-rise single-family neighborhoods. Let’s also assume that these buildings will be sculpted in complete deference to their rear neighbors so that things like shadows are minimized.

    Let’s assume that more housing is better than less housing.

    Finally, let’s assume that, get this, noble families may actually be able to live in mid-rise and high-rise buildings. And that there are already many successful examples of this taking place in the city, such as over here in CityPlace.

    What key messages would this lawn sign be then communicating?

  • Sustainable living means living in a city

    The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published its latest climate change report. Available here. As a follow-up to this report, Dezeen spoke with Hélène Chartier of the sustainable urbanism network C40 Cities. And she makes some very good points about the importance of cities in combatting climate change.

    In fact, she goes so far as to say that sustainable living is only really possible, at scale, in cities. Because to live a more sustainable lifestyle, you need the right kind of infrastructure in place. And to have the right kind of infrastructure in place, you need density.

    This crucial point is often forgotten (though never on this blog). If you are truly concerned about climate change, then you should be for urban density. And if you are out there fighting against urban density, then your actions are undermining this global imperative.

    Chartier rightly points out that “architects have a huge responsibility” when it comes to addressing climate change. And this is entirely true. Their job is the built environment. But with all due respect to architects, the problems that need solving are ultimately much broader. Architects can only do so much if they’re hamstrung by dumb land use policies and angry neighbors, among other things.

    This needs to be a coordinated effort. We all have a huge responsibility.

    Photo by Kaspars Upmanis on Unsplash

  • Sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable

    I just discovered a new alliance of non-partisan, non-profit resident and ratepayer groups in the Greater Toronto Area that have come together in opposition of what they see as “unregulated overdevelopment and the lack of sensible growth vision for the GTA.” If you’d like to read through their public letter to the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, you can do that over here.

    In it you will learn that the Toronto region is vying desperately for the title of the most densely populated place on earth by trying to compete with already established locales like the slums of Mumbai and Monk Kok in Hong Kong. One has to admire ambition.

    But what is not clear to me is what exactly “sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable developments” should look like. Should we quash our low-rise “Neighbourhood” designations (the majority of our land area) and instead blanket the region with mid-rise buildings similar to Paris? This is one option and, by the way, Paris is far denser than Toronto (relevant reading here and here).

    Or should we maintain our low-rise “Neighbourhoods” exactly as they are and simply reduce overall housing supply by limiting height and/or density at our transit stations? Is this the ask? I’m not sure. But this is a good question for city builders: What should sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable development look like? Is the 33-storey building that I live in sensible?

  • Ontario proposes target of 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years

    Yesterday I wrote about our housing doom loop.

    Today, the province of Ontario responded (maybe not to my post) by publishing this Housing Affordability Task Force report. In it, are 55 recommendations to improve overall housing supply across the province, with the end goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.

    I’m still making my way through the report, but the recommendations can basically be grouped into these five main buckets (taken verbatim from this press release):

    • Make changes to planning policies and zoning to allow for greater density and increase the variety of housing.
    • Reduce and streamline urban design rules to lower costs of development.
    • Depoliticize the approvals process to address NIMBYism and cut red tape to speed up housing.
    • Prevent abuse of the appeal process and address the backlog at the Ontario Land Tribunal by prioritizing cases that increase housing.
    • Align efforts between all levels of government to incentivize more housing.

    Reform is badly needed. And I have gone on and on and on and on over the years about a number of the problems associated with how we build new homes and how we expect them to suddenly become more affordable.

    Still, I think that most of the general public would be shocked to learn how long things take, how complicated we have decided to make land use approvals, and how a single person with a vested interested in seeing no development can hold up the delivery of thousands of new homes.

    Progress is measured in years and decades. Months simply evaporate while you wait for the next PDF document to grant you access to some other labyrinthian planning hurdle. It doesn’t need to be this way.

  • Is better design the solution to NIMBYism?

    Alexis Self has an opinion piece in today’s Monocle Minute (email newsletter) that deals with development in London and NIMBYism. Here’s an excerpt:

    Affluent, socially liberal city dwellers can be the most extreme Nimbys. But perhaps their ire wouldn’t be so fierce if what was being built weren’t so aesthetically offensive. In the postwar era, London’s councils teemed with ambitious urban planners. The result: design classics such as Trellick Tower in Kensal Green, the Barbican Estate and Camden’s Alexandra Road Estate. While it’s true that these were labelled ugly at the time, they were undeniably the work of Europe’s best architects. Few, if any, of the city’s 21st-century edifices will enjoy a similar reappraisal.

    Alexis raises two interesting points: 1) Could better architecture and design actually help to quash NIMBY sentiment and 2) are we really not designing and building like we used to?

    I’ll start with number two.

    I am not that familiar with the “design classics” that Alexis mentions above, but it just so happens then when I was watching Never Too Small over the weekend I came across this studio apartment in the Barbican Estate.

    Designed by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in the 1960s, the Barbican is a residential complex with somewhere around 2,000 apartments. It’s considered a prominent example of British brutalist architecture and so most of it is listed.

    While certainly noteworthy, it strikes me that it is likely one of those pieces of architecture that designers and architects love (I like it), but that the general public dislikes. In fact, architect Witold Rybczynski once argued that, “if people don’t hate it, it can’t be Brutalist.”

    Brutalism is having a bit of a renaissance. Kind of. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near universal appreciation. So I wonder if the general public really views these “design classics” as being some sort of golden era of British architecture and development.

    I also think, and I have argued this before on the blog, that buildings sometimes take time to settle in. From Montreal to Stockholm, our perceptions have been shown to change. The things we disliked before suddenly become desirable.

    Which means it can be hard to tell if we objectively dislike something (we’re not building like we used to) or if it’s simply not old enough for us to starting appreciating it. Beauty also happens to be a kind of subjective thing when it comes to buildings. Turns out we’re better at assessing whether people are good looking.

    This is probably a good time to come back to point number one: Could better architecture help quash NIMBYism?

    Not quite. I would argue that it certainly helps but it won’t completely quash it. I believe wholeheartedly in the power of great design. I want everything to be beautiful and considered. But the cynical developer in me knows that it will sadly only go so far.

    Béton brut (raw concrete) isn’t for everyone, I guess.

  • Creating change

    I was reading about a proposed development earlier today (it doesn’t really matter which one for this story) and I immediately thought to myself, “wow, this is a beautiful development. I like what they’ve done here.” The project happens to be by one of my favorite architects in the city. Sadly though, we have yet to work with them on any of our projects.

    I then decided to read the comment section of the article. There were dozens and dozens of comments and virtually all of them were negative and against the development. What is, of course, clear is that we all have different beliefs. We all see things differently. And that’s part of the reason why creating any sort of change is usually so difficult.

    But if you think about it, so much of our world resolves around change. If we want to address climate change, we are going to need to make changes. If we want to improve housing affordability, we are going to need to make changes. If we want to build more inclusive and economically prosperous cities, we are going to need to make changes.

    The challenge with all of this change is that we have inertia working against us. Case in point: I’m sure that most of us have been in a meeting at one point or another when a decision was made purely based on what was done the last time around. We did X. So let’s do X again. Why change? Probably a safe bet.

    Seth Godin once said that, “if you do anything that matters, it means you’re trying to change something.” He was talking about the world of marketing. But I believe that there’s a universal truth to this. Change unlocks potential.