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: planning

  • Why do cities build skyscrapers?

    Very generally speaking, cities build skyscrapers because of some mix of natural market forces and symbolic prestige. In cities like New York and Hong Kong, where land is extremely scarce and valuable, the only option is to go up. Tall buildings are essential. And in cities like Dubai, I think it’s fair to say that symbolic prestige has been the greater motivator, at least at the outset of the city’s modern reinvention as a global city. Tall, over-the-top buildings helped put the city on the map, even when tall, over-the-top buildings weren’t necessary from a direct economic standpoint.

    Another way to encourage tall buildings is to simply restrict everything else. Ontario’s Places to Grow Act of 2005 was well-intentioned. It was designed to encourage intensification, support transit investment, and curb urban sprawl. I believe that all of these things are desirable planning outcomes. But one of the ways that intensification was sold, politically, was that growth would only be directed to specific areas and that the preeminence of single-family housing in the region would not be in any way threatened.

    The result is what has been pejoratively referred to as “tall and sprawl,” meaning tall buildings surrounded by vast swaths of low-density housing. It’s a built-form contrast that feels unnatural precisely because it is a market distortion created by policy. In a pure market without zoning constraints, the likely built-form outcome would be a smoother density gradient down from major urban nodes and transit stations (where land values tend to be higher). Of course, the Toronto region is filled with countless counterexamples of this.

    Now, to be fair, good work is being done to address this missing layer of medium density, but we’re not there yet. And we’re still working through the supply of the last cycle. Rachelle Younglai recently published an article in The Globe and Mail called “Condo developers outside Toronto feeling the biggest strain from market’s downturn.” This is not surprising. Peripheral markets generally get hit the hardest during real estate downturns and take the longest to bounce back. But on top of this, there are suburban towers that probably didn’t need to get built. The economic imperative was tenuous but for the planning restrictions and the pre-construction condo market.

    My suggestion would be to upzone the areas surrounding these towers and remove as many development constraints as possible, especially around transit nodes. This may seem paradoxical given we’re currently talking about excess supply, but the glut is likely a product mismatch problem. Allowing the surrounding areas to fill in invites the market to build what is most in demand, smooth out the density gradient, build amenities, and create destinations that could then lift the value of the entire node.

    This is not an immediate solution, but it’s a path toward a more natural market outcome. Need a case study to point to? Look to Tokyo. Flexible permissions, mixed-use zones by default, and an orientation around rail have allowed Tokyo to organically evolve into one of the most livable global cities on the planet.

  • The great bifurcation: Machine-centred vs. human-centred real estate

    “When you fall in love again, you don’t think about the ex very much.” —Travis Kalanick, co-founder of Uber, talking about how he feels about Uber today

    You’d be forgiven for thinking that Travis Kalanick, co-founder of Uber, is back. Since leaving Uber heartbroken in 2017, he has been relatively quiet. But in his words, “I’ve been working my ass off the whole time. I just haven’t been talking about it.” Clearly. Last month, he announced that his startup Atoms had just raised $1.7 billion in equity. The round was led by venture firm a16z.

    Atoms is an audacious business and I would encourage you to check out their website and read their vision. Travis describes his life’s work as “digitizing the physical world” and Atoms’ mission is “physical automation to transform industry and move the world.”

    What that means — and what’s fascinating for us real estate people — is that he’s creating a physical AI company that uses single-purpose machines (as opposed to general-purpose humanoids like what Tesla has been promising for a number of years) to automate specialized tasks such as food preparation, resource extraction, and transport.

    However, all of these “atoms” need to be stored and processed somewhere, and so Travis views land and real estate as a critical resource in the world of physical AI. He goes on to argue that real estate development is a “dramatically underappreciated” ingredient. Everyone in tech has been too focused on software. And he means it. I took a look at their careers section and they have dozens of real estate-related job postings across the world.

    The hope with all of this is a new Golden Age:

    “Everything in our world, in our cities, in our civilization – look around you – is mined or grown – manufactured and moved. The next Golden Age will be upon us when the means of growing, mining, manufacturing and moving physical things becomes fully divorced from human labor.”

    When you consider this vision and our current data centre boom, it’s not hard to imagine the potential impacts on our built environment. Our cities are bifurcating into two broad forms of real estate: machine-centred and human-centred real estate.

    The machine-centred assets might service our online lives or the physical world, as is the case with Atoms, but they won’t necessarily need to engage with their broader environment or have things like windows, climate control, and even lights. They are “black boxes” for machines.

    Human-centred assets are, on the other hand, the sort of spaces that we talk about on this blog: walkable, human-scaled communities where people genuinely want to live, work and play. This, in my view, is the divide we are headed toward and it’s going to mean a reconfiguration of our urban areas and a repricing of real estate assets.

    Intuitively, I think this will only enhance the value of human-centred assets. We are going to want what is scarce: authentic human connections, beautiful architecture, and differentiated people-first experiences.

  • More homes, less rezonings

    One of the really positive things that is happening in the world of Toronto land use planning is that the minimum scale of development that is permitted as-of-right continues to grow. We’ve gone from fourplexes to 6-storey apartments, and now we’re talking about mid-rise buildings (6-11 storeys) and even some tall buildings (12 storeys or more).

    What this ultimately means is being able to build without a rezoning application. That means no site specific negotiation, and no fighting over whether the building should be 32 meters tall or 30.5 meters tall with a 2.4 meter stepback because of shadowing concerns on someone’s heritage-designated garden gnome. It means getting under construction sooner.

    Here are some of the specific ideas being reviewed:

    • Expand the number of streets designated as “Avenues” throughout Toronto (Avenues are a defined term and where we have decided that mid-rise buildings should go)
    • New Official Plan policies that would encourage more mid-rise buildings on Avenues
    • Eliminate the rear angular plane requirement (currently a mid-rise performance standard); this is expected to produce ~30% more homes in your typical mid-rise development
    • Increase as-of-right permitted heights to 6-11 storeys (the city estimates that this will unlock ~61,000 additional homes)
    • Introduce “transition zones” between Avenues and low-rise neighborhoods, which could then accommodate things like low-rise towns and apartments up to 4 storeys (it’s worth noting that transition zones were initially part of Toronto’s mid-rise performance standards but then got removed for some reason)

    This is meaningful progress. Let’s enact and keep going.

  • Power of the pen

    Yikes. To be completely honest, I was not expecting this post and this post to blow up in the way that they did. But hey, here we are and here’s the blogTO article: “Developer shames City of Toronto into issuing permit for bold new skyscraper.” What all of this suggests is that most people are shocked by how long it takes and how difficult it is to build a building. I mean, what I wrote about is just one sliver among the countless other things that need to come together for it to happen. But to my mind, these are productive discussions to be having. Because the more everyone is aware, the more likely we are to improve things.

  • We received our building permit!

    As a follow-up to last week’s post about giving free land to the City of Toronto, I am now thrilled to report that, today at 12:14 PM, we received our building permit!

    Some of you were keen to hear about what happened following the post. So here’s the update. I published the original post last Wednesday. And to be honest, it received far more attention than I was expecting.

    On Thursday morning I received a call from the city. They weren’t thrilled about my post, but were very helpful and said that they would ensure the conveyance happened immediately. It then got done before noon that same day.

    Planning then sent a note to buildings saying that the permit was ready for issuance. Yay. Buildings acknowledged that they were working on it, and on Monday of this week we received a summary of the outstanding fees and the instructions for the wire transfer.

    We paid the fees immediately and on Tuesday we received a payment receipt from the city. Then today — Wednesday — we received the building permit. So it was exactly one week from post to permit. A big thanks to everyone who helped to finally move this forward.

    Hopefully it’s clear that last week’s post came strictly from a place of prolonged frustration. I wasn’t trying to be mean. Our lawyer reminded me, after the post, that we’ve actually been working on this land conveyance for over 2 years.

  • Rear-yard suites and secondary suites built in Toronto over the last decade

    Here is a mapping, from the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, showing the number of “closed” building permits issued in Toronto between 2013 and 2023 for both rear-yard suites (laneway houses and garden suites) and secondary suites (like basement apartments).

    A “closed” building permit probably means that construction is complete. However, it is not uncommon for a permit to inadvertently remain open. This happened to me with Mackay Laneway House. The permit was supposed to be closed, but it wasn’t.

    So here’s the same mapping with open (i.e. active) permits also turned on:

    Three things immediately stand out:

    1. Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.
    2. Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.
    3. North Toronto is wealthy and isn’t having either of these housing typologies.

    Looking at these mappings, it probably seems like a decent amount of new housing. But that’s not really the case:

    • From 2013 to 2023, Toronto issued 2,209 building permits for secondary suites (1,525 have been closed and 684 remain open as of December 31, 2023).
    • And from 2020 to 2023, Toronto issued 898 building permits for rear-yard suites (192 have been closed and 706 remain open, which does suggest some increased adoption). Rear-yard suites only became permissible in 2018, which is why the date range is shorter.

    To be fair, I would imagine that many secondary suites get built without a building permit. So I think the above number is probably underestimating actual supply. But even still, it doesn’t change the conclusion: A lot more needs to be done to increase the supply of new housing in Toronto.

  • Geography of activity centers

    We need more “activity centers”. That is my takeaway from this report by Brookings.

    Activity centers are exactly what they sound like. But to be more specific, the definition used in the report is based on five categories of assets: community, tourism, consumption, institutional, and economic. And what the authors did was look at the relative concentration of each across the 110 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the US with at least 500,000 residents.

    They then came up with 3 different kinds of activity centers. Monocenters (blue in the above map), secondary centers (yellow), and primary centers (orange). Monocenters have, as you’d probably expect, a lot of one kind of asset. Secondary centers, on the other hand, have “some of at least two kinds of assets.” And primary centers have “a lot of at least two kinds of assets.”

    Looking at the above map, it is pretty clear — and not at all surprising — that Manhattan is, for the most part, one giant activity center. There is a lot going on. But this is not the typical condition. In the 110 metro areas looked at in the study, activity centers only occupy about 3% of land on average. The remaining 97% of land is, based on the above definition, a non-activity center.

    Why this matters is that activity centers punch above their weight. Despite representing a small land area, activity centers are home to 40% of all private sector jobs in the US. Supposedly, they also increase productivity (by an additional ~$1,723 per worker), yield higher property values (+26%), increase inclusivity, and reduce vehicle miles travelled.

    So yeah, more activity centers sounds like a good thing for our cities. Though as we have learned in recent years, we need to be careful with monocenters.

    Map: Brookings

  • Housing supply in low-cost and high-cost municipalities

    Here is a housing study that looked at housing supply — in the US from 2000 to 2020 — relative to median housing values. And here is the key takeaway:

    What this chart is saying is that new housing is rarely added in cities with the lowest-value homes. The bar on the left represents municipalities whose median housing values are less than 50% of the metropolitan average. And this makes sense. If values are low there is likely little to no incentive to build. The math just doesn’t work.

    However, as home values increase, the incentive to build and the ability to finance new projects also increases, and that is what we see in the above chart. This also makes sense.

    But something interesting happens in the highest-value cities — housing supply once again starts to fall off. And it turns out that there is a bit of a sweet spot. Municipalities whose relative housing values are 110 to 130% of the metropolitan average actually produce the most overall housing. Any higher than that and things start to decline.

    Why is that? The answer likely has to do with restrictive land-use regulations. The highest-value cities (and wealthiest suburbs) often have a lot of large single-family lots, as well as policies to ensure that this kind of built form doesn’t change. This has the effect of both limiting supply and enshrining values.

    So when it comes to housing supply, what you don’t want are low-cost areas. But you also don’t want the highest-value areas. What you want are areas that are doing well, but no so well that they start really restricting new entrants. This is what our industry often refers to as exclusionary zoning.

    Now, one of the most common ways to respond to this problem is to develop an opposing policy, namely inclusionary zoning. But usually what this policy doesn’t do is direct more supply to these high-value and low-density areas. Instead what it typically does is force the segment that is producing the most housing — let’s call it the 110 to 130% band — to deliver more affordable housing.

    It’s a neat trick that sounds pretty cool, but it is not at no cost.

  • Use-it-or-lose-it entitlements

    One of the things that cities often try and stamp out is speculation. Homes should not sit empty (enter vacant home tax). Storefronts should not sit empty (enter vacant commercial tax). And development land should not sit undeveloped. To correct this latter problem, one idea that is sometimes floated around is “use-it-or-lose-it” zoning.

    The way it works today in, I believe, most cities, is that if you do a site-specific rezoning on a property — and secure additional density — you get those special permissions forever. If you want to wait 100 years before starting construction, you are technically entitled to do that. Of course, in the interim, no new housing is actually being created. It’s all just on paper.

    The idea with “use-it-or-lose-it” entitlements is that — instead of these permissions lasting forever — they would expire after a certain period of time, which would mean that the entire rezoning process would need to be done all over again. These take time (at least a few years) and cost money (it’s in the millions). And so it has been suggested that this would incentivize developers to not sit on entitled land.

    While I do understand where this line of thinking is coming from, let me make a few points:

    • Generally speaking, most developers don’t just sit on entitled land for fun. They need things to happen, and to happen quickly, so that value can be realized. If there is a problem of too many developers not actually building, it could be a sign that there are other market factors impacting feasibility.
    • There is nothing wrong with rezoning a property and then “flipping it out” to another developer. This is often viewed negatively. But some developers only rezone properties and some developers only buy zoned sites. These can be different phases of the value chain. A rezoning can take years and millions of dollars, and so sometimes developers don’t have the wherewithal or desire to do both.
    • A use-it-or-lose-it approach unfairly punishes developers during market cycles and bear markets, like the one we are experiencing right now. There is no way to predict when the next global pandemic will hit, when construction costs might surge 40%, and when the fed could start rapidly increasing rates to calm inflation. Maybe waiting out the storm is all you can do.
    • If you’re building condominium housing in our market, you generally need pre-sales in order to secure a construction loan. Let’s call it 70% pre-sold. What happens if this takes longer than expected? And what happens if you sell 50%, your site-specific rezoning expires, and then you have to restart the entire process? At this point and in this current market environment, you would likely have to cancel the entire project and reboot it.
    • Timing is important. To give a specific project example, we had planned to launch condominium pre-sales for our One Delisle project in the fall of 2020. And we were ready to do that. But sentiment didn’t feel right. Too pandemic-y still, and so we waited until the spring of 2021. This turned out to be the right decision. But what would have happened had we had this timing gun to our head? (Truthfully, it always feels like there’s a timing gun to our head.)
    • I have written about this before, but go-to-market strategies are changing in this current environment. It is taking longer to start sales and construction because, among other things, developers are spending more time trying to pin down their construction costs. Would rezoning expiries take all of this into consideration and adjust accordingly?
    • Finally, if one is going to do something like force developers to pull all of their building permits within X months of receiving zoning approvals — or else suffer the consequences — then everything required to get there should also have a maximum timeline associated with it. In other words, cities would also need to do things like commit to issuing permits within Y months of receiving a submission — or else. It’s only fair that this cuts both ways. But just to be very, very clear, I do not think this is a good idea.

    What I am broadly saying is that (1) development is a pain in the ass and (2) developers are already heavily incentivized to move quickly and make things happen. It is not uncommon for projects to take 5-10 years from site acquisition to completion. And a lot of unexpected things can happen during that time period. Hopefully losing your entitlements doesn’t become one of them.

  • The even narrower streets of Noto, Sicily

    So it turns out that the narrow streets in Le Panier (in Marseille) are actually far too wide at nearly 13 feet. What were the planners even thinking back in 600? Here’s a street I found in Noto, Sicily at just over 4 feet. I’m not sure if this is considered some sort of tertiary lane or not, but it had a street sign, addresses, and businesses in a courtyard at the end of it. So I’m going to assume it’s a bona fide street. It’s hard to imagine getting much tighter than this. I wonder if Jeff Bezos delivers here.