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.
I am moderating a panel at the Toronto Real Estate Forum later this year (it’s on December 2 to be exact). The topic is innovation in development. There is a great panel of speakers (more info here) and the plan right now is to cover everything from new design and construction approaches to the rise of crypto and blockchains. Topics that are all near and dear to this blog.
But we are still in the early stages of planning and I haven’t yet figured out what the questions to the panel will be. So I thought it would be interesting to hear from all of you: What would you say are the most important topics to cover when it comes to innovation in development? What’s next for our industry, or what should be next for our industry?
If you have any thoughts, please leave a comment below. That way everyone can see them. Supposedly this is one of the most asked for topics at the real estate forum, and so it’s clearly top of mind for many people.
I was out for dinner this week with a group of real estate developers. And as you might expect, we spent the majority of the time talking about real estate and complaining about how long things take. But a good chunk of time was also spent pontificating about the world of crypto. That’s what happens these days. In fact, one of my friends joked that my/this blog used to be a real estate and cities blog, but now it’s a crypto blog. It’s a joke, but I guess it’s becoming partially true.
For as long as I can remember, I have always been interested in what’s new and what’s next. And I think this is next. So I’m reading, playing, thinking, and writing about it. And the more I do these things, the more my conviction grows. But what really did it for me was the hands-on playing around part. I’m not interested in owning a crypto ETF (the US is about to get its first bitcoin ETF based on futures contracts). I want to own the cryptocurrencies directly so I can see what they can do and how everything works. (Though I will say that this space is still not very user friendly.)
One of the things that comes to mind as I continue to play is the future interrelationship between our offline and online worlds. Because already we are living in a world where people now buy and collect rent on virtual real estate in places like Decentraland (REITs are even starting to emerge). Where parties happen online instead of offline (but still attract big name DJs). Where people buy digital fashion instead of physical fashion, and pay just as much for it and sometimes even more. And where augmented reality is changing how we experience our cities in real life. A few weeks ago, I came across a park in Paris that had partnered with Snapchat to deliver an AR experience, to give just one example.
These are meaningful shifts that are gaining traction (and this post is by no means an exhaustive list). And while I remain steadfast in my belief that cities are profoundly resilient and real-world experiences are irreplaceable, I do believe that our emerging digital worlds are going to have an impact on how we design and build our cities going forward. From art murals of NFTs to entire new virtual worlds, this is an exciting time for cities and technology.
We have a running joke in our office about the manic nature of the development business. Sometimes you feel like you’re having the best day of your life and everything is clicking and moving forward. And sometimes it feels like you’re about to die (slight exaggeration). Things are stuck, nothing is moving, and/or a new problem has just popped up. So our team likes to joke that we have a “manic meter” in our corner of the office. Sometimes it’s up and sometimes it’s down.
Part of the challenge is that progress in the world of development generally takes a very long time. Whenever I talk to someone who isn’t in the industry and I explain our timelines, they are usually shocked and question why things move so slowly. For example, we just spent the last 82 days trying to pull a building permit that realistically could have been issued in an afternoon. That is frustrating. Meter down. We have also spent more than half a decade working on some planning approvals. That’s even more frustrating. Meter down.
The way I have learned to respond to this dynamic is to try and move as fast as possible. Never assume you have enough time, because things will generally always take longer than you expect. You need to be constantly moving and pushing. So you need to be impatient in the short-term. I also find it helpful to break big projects down into smaller projects so that you have wins to celebrate along the way and you can feel some accomplishment. Having hobbies that don’t take decades to come to fruition may further help.
But alongside being impatient in the short-term, you also have to be patient in the long-term. Our team started working on One Delisle in 2015. We are now in 2021 and preparing to start construction. That’s a marathon, not a sprint. So what you need to do is find the right balance between short-term impatience and long-term patience. This, I guess, is part of the manic nature of this business.
Fred Wilson wrote a great post last month about leadership. In it, he compares what he calls visionary leadership to operational leadership. Here’s a snippet:
I like to keep things simple and in my simple mind, leadership comes in two flavors, visionary leadership and operational leadership. Founders are almost always visionaries (if they aren’t, run in the opposite direction) and hired CEOs are almost always operators.
The post goes on to explain the dynamics between these two types of leadership. Vision, he argues, needs to come from the top. You need someone setting direction at a high level. Operational leadership doesn’t have to be this way, and often isn’t. You can hire for it.
In some special cases, you have leaders who are both. Another snippet:
Leaders who can provide both operational and visionary leadership are a rare but special breed. When you find one, get on their bus and stay on it for as long as you can. It will be an incredible trip.
I have seen all of this play out in the real estate development space.
There are people who are great at identifying new sites (land) and coming up with fresh and innovative ideas, but it is clear that they need an operator or two around them. There’s nothing wrong with this pairing.
Development is also a very long and slow game and you need people who can operate — deeply in the weeds — over extended periods of time. Persistence and tenacity are crucial. Patience I guess, too.
There are many development narratives that I don’t quite understand. (I’m thinking of Toronto, but you can probably replace Toronto with any number of global cities for this discussion.) One is the belief that our transit network is full and so no new development should be allowed in certain locations, next to certain transit stations. The thrust of this argument is that additional transit capacity must be added before any new development is allowed to occur. This might sound logical, except it ignores the fact that the need for new housing doesn’t magically disappear because subway cars are thought to be too busy during the morning rush.
Transit systems are also a network, and so does this mean that no more development should be allowed to happen anywhere in the city/region? Or is the goal to simply move development off of higher order transit and into lower-density areas so that the future residents in these new buildings can either take buses to the transit stations that were previously deemed to be at capacity or drive their cars everywhere? (Our highways have excess capacity during the morning rush, right?)
The second narrative that I find perplexing is that new developments don’t give back in any way. Above is a chart showing residential development charges in the City of Toronto, as of November 1, 2020. This chart outlines the fees that every developer must pay when building new residential, though it is important to keep in mind that there are many other government fees and charges that form part of almost every new development. These are things like parkland dedication and separately negotiated community benefits. But for the purposes of this post, let’s just focus on development charges (aka impact fees).
Assume you’re building a 400 unit apartment building, consisting of 240 one bedroom suites (60%) and 160 two and three bedroom suites (40%). Based on the above chart, your development charge bill would be:
240 one bedroom suites x $33,358 per unit = $8,005,920
160 two and three bedroom suites x $51,103 per unit = $8,176,480
For a total of $16,182,400.
But it’s important to keep in mind that these are the rates as of November 1, 2020. They will almost certainly go up by the time these charges become payable for your 400 unit apartment building. By how much you ask? Well according to Urban Capital’s most recent issue of Site Magazine, which compared a development pro forma from 2005 to 2020, development charges in the City of Toronto have increased by about 3,244% during this time period. (The S&P 500 was up about 220% during this same time.) These are obligatory fees that contribute to everything from transit and parks to subsidized housing and municipal services. (The line items above.)
So it strikes me that there are other more productive questions that we could and should be asking ourselves. Such as, why is it that our transit/mobility infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with new development and new housing demand? What are we going to do to fix that immediately? Why are we not taxing the things we don’t want (like traffic congestion) so that we have more resources for the things we do want (like transit and housing)? And most importantly, what is the best way for all of us to work together so that we can create the absolute greatest global city in the world?
At the beginning of this month, Restoration Hardware announced that it was making a $105 million equity investment in a development project in Aspen, Colorado. When completed, the project will house what the company is calling their “first RH ecosystem,” which will include an RH Gallery, RH Guesthouse, RH Bath House & Spa, RH Restaurants, and RH Residences. All of this is fascinating to me from an experiential retail, brand ecosystem, and real estate development standpoint. It also reinforces my belief that differentiated hotels and high-touch hospitality aren’t going anywhere, notwithstanding the fact that Airbnb is arguably now the largest “hotel company” in the world. People are hungry for these kinds of curated experiences, and they’re going to be positively starving once we get through this pandemic.
Aspen has been selected to develop the first RH ecosystem inclusive of an RH Bespoke Gallery, RH Guesthouse, RH Bath House & Spa, RH Restaurants, and our first RH Residences. The RH Gallery on Galena, currently under development, will offer two floors of the RH Interiors, Contemporary, Modern, and RH Ski House collections, plus Interior Design, Architecture, and Landscape Architecture services. Additionally, the Gallery will include a transparent glass rooftop restaurant with views of Aspen Mountain, a Wine & Barista Bar, plus two private dining rooms with fireplaces and retractable roofs. The RH Guesthouse at the Historic Crystal Palace, also currently under construction, will feature guest suites with fireplaces, a live fire restaurant, wine vault, private rooftop pool and dining terrace with views of Aspen Mountain, and the brand’s first RH Bath House & Spa. The RH Residences at the Historic Boomerang Lodge will include up to five fully furnished four bedroom custom homes, and The RH Residence on Red Mountain will be a fully furnished six bedroom home with multiple terraces and an infinity pool with views of downtown, Aspen Mountain and Independence Pass. All of the RH Residences will include membership to the RH Bath House & Spa, plus priority reservations at the brand’s restaurants and private dining venues.
When I was in graduate school, my plan was to create a vertically integrated design and development company. I loved designing things and wanted to remain close to those sorts of details, but I had already decided that I wasn’t going to be an architect in the traditional sense and that I was going to be a developer. And so my objective was to figure out a way to combine everything under one roof. How could we be designers, but also be the entrepreneurs that make buildings happen?
In some ways, Mackay Laneway House is a manifestation of that model. Through a partnership with Gabriel Fain Architects, we (Globizen Studio) have been heavily involved on the design side. Gabriel did all of the drawings and the overall architecture, but we weighed in (more than your typical client), selected most of the FF&E, and even designed things like the kitchen (with Scavolini) and the exterior signage. I wouldn’t call it true vertical integration, but we did start to blur the lines between architect/designer and developer.
One of the interesting things about this approach is that it begins to create some consistency and a bit of a branded product. The hope is that when Mackay Laneway House is fully complete, it will read as a Globizen project, which is not that dissimilar from what David Wex of Urban Capital was talking about in this recent podcast. Their projects are a specific kind of product. They generally repeat it, and if that’s not what you’re interested in, then you don’t buy an Urban Capital home.
But this also raises an important question: what is the role of architects and architecture in the case of buildings as very specific products? (This is something that we have discussed before on the blog.) Is the job of the architect to create an interesting exterior shell that then gets populated on the inside by a specific product offering? Or is it even worse, is architecture sometimes just an “empty vessel” that gets interior design and a brand slapped onto it? In some cases and with some projects, it does feel this way.
I am a firm believer in the value of architecture and design. An “empty vessel” is not architecture. It is, well, an empty vessel. And that is not what I aim for in any of the projects that I’m involved in. Creativity, function, thoughtfulness and, yes, beauty, are all important. At the same time, I think this is a valuable debate. These sorts of questions are helpful in dissecting the architecture/development value chain. And so I would be interested in hearing your thoughts in the comment section below.
“One of the great generalisations we can make about the modern world is that it is, to an extraordinary degree, an ugly world. If we were to show an ancestor from 250 years ago around our cities and suburbs, they would be amazed at our technology, impressed by our wealth, stunned by our medical advances – and shocked and disbelieving at the horrors we had managed to build. Societies that are, in most respects, hugely more advanced than those of the past have managed to construct urban environments more dispiriting, chaotic and distasteful than anything humanity has ever known.“
Naturally, it turns out that this is, at least partially, the fault of greedy and unscrupulous real estate developers:
“When property developers heard that the artistic avant-garde was now promoting a concept of functionalism, they rejoiced. From the most high brow quarters, the most mean minded motives had been given a seal of approval. No longer would these developers have to spend any money on anything to do with beauty. Out could go the symmetry, the flowers, the nice but slightly more expensive materials. It could all be as quick, ugly and cheap as possible; after all, isn’t that what the great minds of architecture had advised?“
The author goes on:
“Yet this nuance was lost on the property developers who came after them. Their constructions weren’t elegantly pared down with grace. They were something far worse: sloppy, mean-minded and ugly. Except that now, because of the words of the modernist masters, there was apparently nothing one could do to charge them with a dereliction of duty. The concept of beauty had been rendered old-fashioned, it smelt elitist and woolly. No one could any more complain that beauty was missing from the world without sounding soft-headed.“
To be fair, the essay doesn’t entirely blame developers. It, more specifically, outlines six possible reasons for the ugliness of the modern world. And I do agree with some of them.
We are looking to hire an Associate or Director to join the Development team here in our Toronto office. The full set of responsibilities can be found over here on LinkedIn, but at a high level, we are looking for someone who wants to join an entrepreneurial team and lead — fairly independently — a portfolio of urban infill projects.
Our approach to development really stems from the broader Slate platform. We are bold and thematic investors who work to create long-term value for our investors and partners. From a development perspective, that translates into an unwavering commitment to design & culture, innovation, and disciplined project execution.
We pride ourselves on working alongside the world’s best architects and designers, and uncovering opportunities that others may be overlooking. We are proactive and hands-on in everything that we do. We also feel an inherent sense of responsibility for the buildings that we create and we want the work that we do to help improve our cities. We stand behind our product.
If this sounds like a mission that you can get behind, then I would encourage you to learn more about us at slateam.com and submit an application via LinkedIn. Please note that we are also asking candidates to introduce themselves through a short video.
My friend David Wex of Urban Capital Property Group — who I featured in my “BARED” blog series back in 2016 — was recently interviewed by architect Vincent Van den Brink (of Breakhouse) for the firm’s podcast called, Design Makes Everything Better. It’s a great listen and I particularly like the bit around branded vs. opportunistic real estate development. In the case of Urban Capital, David would describe his firm as being a branded developer. They build a specific product and it doesn’t really change when they build across Toronto and in other markets. Expect exposed concrete ceilings and exposed ducts, among other things. If you can’t see the embedded podcast above, you can have a listen over here.
