Tag: real estate

• Incubating new ideas in cities

  A couple of days ago I wrote about a documentary series called Real Scenes. It’s a fascinating series that examines the electronic music scene in a bunch of different cities from New York to Berlin to Tokyo. 

  What’s fascinating about these films is the inside look it gives you into how these “scenes” develop. Berlin, for example, is absolutely on fire right now. It has a thriving startup scene and a reputation for being a major force in the world of electronic music.

  How did that happen?

  The documentary leads you to believe that Berlin was able to establish itself as, arguably, the techno music capital of the world by having lots of empty buildings and nobody cracking down on squatters after the Berlin Wall fell. Quite literally, the scene appears to have started as a result of illegal techno parties being thrown in abandoned buildings. 

  It’s a perfect and perhaps extreme example of Jane Jacobs’ famous line that new ideas require old buildings. The rents are simply too high in new buildings for anything experimental. Landlords naturally prefer to rent to triple-A tenants who will pay the highest rents. And who can blame them. 

  But just like there’s tremendous value in incubating new startups before they’re even close to turning a profit, there’s obviously value in empowering new ideas, new concepts, new retailers, and new businesses to flourish within cities. 

  I’m not exactly sure how that could be done in the context of new developments, but it’s on my mind right now as a result of some discussions I’ve been having with some incredibly smart and ambitious people in this city.

  So today I’d like to turn it over to you. How could we make it so that new ideas flourish even in new buildings? Since investment naturally drives up rents, does that mean it will always put pressure on those crazy instigators who just need cheap space?

  2015.03.13

• 3 architects operating as developers

  

  A reader recently shared with me an interesting article from Crain’s New York (2013) profiling three “architects as developers.” The three firms are DDG Partners (which I’ve mentioned before here on ATC), FLAnk, and Alloy.

  I’ve written a lot about these emerging business models and I continue to think that we’re going to see more of them in the coming years.  As evidence for that claim, I thought it was really interesting to read in the article that Vishaan Chakrabarti – who is director of the real estate program at Columbia University – made specific mention that there’s growing interest among his students to wear multiple hats. In other words, they don’t want to be just an architect or just a developer. They want do it all.

  In a lot of cases, these firms are made up of partners who have those diverse skill sets. There’s only so much that one person can do. But that doesn’t negate the fact that vertically integrated companies are being formed that handle everything from design and construction to property management and development.

  And if an increasing number of students today are interested and thinking about those models, then I think it’s a pretty safe bet that many of them will get out into the workforce and eventually create those companies in the future.

  Ultimately, I think that’s a great thing for cities. Developers tend to have a bad reputation for thinking only about money. But when you bring design and other disciplines in-house, you create tensions in the process. And tension can be a great thing for innovation and creativity.

  Image: 385 West 12th by Flank

  2015.03.11

• What you should study to become a real estate developer

  One of the most common questions I receive from readers is about what to study in school in order to become a real estate developer. Here’s one of those questions:

  “Thank you so much for your insight into the real estate development process! I was wondering if you could do a post on what educational degrees you think would best prepare someone for a career in real estate development?”

  I’m not surprised that a lot of aspiring real estate developers have this question on their mind. Compared to many other career options, the path to real estate development has traditionally been pretty informal. It’s much less structured compared to other professions such as law or medicine.

  But as the real estate industry continues to institutionalize (transition from rich families to institutions), I’m sure we’ll see recruitment become more structured as well.

  Already the MBA and Master in Real Estate Development (or some other permutation of that degree) have become — for many large real estate organizations — the prerequisite to getting in the door. So if you’re looking for a simple and safe answer, just get one of these degrees.

  To more fully answer this question though, I thought I would just share my own strategy for getting into real estate development. Because at the end of the day, there’s no one way to become a developer. Lots of people start out in other industries, only to fall into real estate later on.

  The way I started was by first identifying the skills that I thought I would need as a real estate developer and that I felt employers would be looking for. And I assembled this list by going on lots of informational coffee meetings with developers to make sure I was headed in the right direction with my assumptions. 

  In the end, this is more or less what I decided I needed to know:

  Planning: An understanding of local planning policies, zoning, and so on. For this one, it’ll help if you can pick a particular place and commit to learning it (which is what I did with Toronto). There are a lot of local particularities that you’ll need to grasp. Real estate is very much a local business.

  Finance & Economics: The ability to understand markets, build models, and crunch numbers just like a banker. That was my goal before I got an MBA. This includes discounted cash flow analyses, net present value calculations, internal rates of return, and so on.

  Sales & Leasing: There are a lot of people who think that this is the best way to start in real estate (particularly on the commercial side). Learn the nitty gritty of leases and deal negotiations and then figure out where you want to be in real estate. Because at the end of the day, development projects are only viable when you have sales and/or signed leases in place.

  Design & Construction: This was the easy one for me because I was coming from an architecture background. I could “read plans” and I didn’t need to convince people that I understood how buildings worked and how they were built. Instead, I needed to convince people that I had all the other skills.

  And I knew this because that was the feedback I received my informational coffee meetings while I was in architecture school. One CEO (of a large publicly traded REIT in the US) told me flat out: “I need to feel comfortable that you can negotiate and that you won’t fuck up the numbers.”

  And that stuck with me. I realized that I had an image to shed.

  To round out my skill set, I decided to specialize in real estate in my first masters and then get an MBA. And given the chance, I would do it the same all over again. But even if you don’t have the opportunity or inclination to do that, there are a lot of other things you can do to shore up your knowledge base.

  I took a number of ARGUS and Excel classes to learn how to build robust real estate models. You might be surprised at how much you end up learning about the real estate business by doing that. I also became involved in organizations like the Urban Land Institute and started going to every real estate panel I could find. And before committing to doing an MBA, I even thought about taking some accounting classes at a local College.

  So my point is that I think you should identify the skills and strengths that you have today and then figure out some way to acquire the missing ones. Go buy a real estate textbook. Take an online class. Go to industry events. Do whatever it takes to round out your skill set so that you can sit in front a prospective employer (developer) and tell them that you’re able to create value for them and their organization across every facet of the development process. That was my goal when I was trying to get in.

  Of course, those aren’t your only options. 

  You could also just work your way up by taking any job with a real estate developer. One of my closest friends did exactly that and today is doing incredibly well with no formal training in real estate or even a related field. You could also just go out and buy your first property and have a go at it. Many great fortunes have been created by doing exactly that.

  Either way, real estate development is an exciting business to be in. It can often be hard to get your foot in the door given the size of most development teams, but if it’s truly what you want to do and you work on acquiring the skills, I think you’ll eventually find your path.

  2015.03.11

• Google’s new Mountain View campus [Video]

  Google wants to build a new campus in Mountain View, California. Their objective is to create a space where “people, nature and ideas” can thrive. The architects on the project are Bjarke Ingels and Thomas Heatherwick.

  Last week Google released a video talking about the ambitious project. It is a good watch and only 10 minutes. Click here if you can’t see the video below.

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3v4rIG8kQA?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  2015.03.08

• What will the condo market look like in 10-20 years?

  Over the past week I’ve had 2 separate people ask me my thoughts on the future of the condo market in Toronto. One of them was working on a University study and one of them was trying to figure out what (condo) property managers would look like in the future. 

  To be clear, the questions weren’t motivated by the typical “bubble” debate that the media loves to headline, rather these were questions about the long term future of condos in this city.

  I haven’t written about this topic explicitly, so today I thought I would summarize my responses for the Architect This City community. There’s probably a touch of aspiration in the responses I gave, but it’s more or less what I’m thinking and what I believe has a good chance of happening over the next 10-20 years.

  Here are some of my thoughts (not an exhaustive list):

  Intensification is going to continue in Toronto and that is going to mean more condominiums and other types of multi-family dwellings. Rental apartments is the product type du jour right now within the real estate community.

  As intensification continues, I think we’re going to see a tipping point in the near term with more families opting to have and raise children in condos in the city. Part of this will be driven by a desire to stay in the city (walkable communities), but part of it will also be driven by the economics (i.e. high price) of low-rise housing in the city.

  As families begin to fill in condos (not just young single professionals and empty nesters), we’ll see developers and cities respond with more family friendly buildings, amenities, and program choices. This could mean anything from children’s play spaces within buildings to redesigned public spaces and parks.

  In line with this shift, I think we’ll also see more sophisticated executions of “mixed-use.” Rather than just stacked uses (retail at the bottom, a few levels of office, and a residential condo tower above), developers and operators are going to start thinking about the ecosystem they are creating. (Related discussion in the comment section of this post.)

  It’s probably a bit safe to predict that sustainability will become more important going forward. But I think that as more families and long-term end users opt for condos, that consumers will become more interested in building and energy performance. Technological advancement (both hardware and software) will also give this a boost.

  Finally, and this applies somewhat to real estate in general, I believe that we’ll see a lot more openness and transparency all across the industry. There will be much better access to data and information. Similar to above, this will be aided by advances in technology and networks.

  Now it’s your turn. What do you think of the above list? And what will the condo market — either in Toronto or in your city — look like in 10-20 years?

  2015.02.27

• What do you want to read about on Architect This City in 2015?

  

  Schönefeld by Vladimir Smirnov on 500px

  Though this blog is focused on cities and geared towards city builders, I cover a lot of different topics. 

  I talk about real estate, architecture, planning, transportation, technology, and even personal topics. My primary goal is to create a worldwide community of people passionate about building great cities, but at the same time it’s still a personal blog.

  Usually I just write about whatever is currently on my mind. I never queue up posts and so each post is written the day of. But sometimes I wonder if I’m delivering on what you, the readers, really want to read and talk about. 

  So today I thought I would simply ask: what would you like to see more of on ATC in 2015? Let me know in the comment section below and I’ll try my best to deliver.

  2015.02.20

• Thoughts on urban renewal and Geary Avenue

  

  dupont survivor by Josemaria de Churtichaga on 500px

  I was on CBC radio this morning talking about the revitalization of Dovercourt Village and Geary Avenue in Toronto. 

  The funny thing about this topic is that it’s one I actually held off writing about. I’ve been thinking about this street and area for probably about 5 years now. However, I do have to keep some secrets to myself 🙂

  But then I started feeling like the cat was already out of the bag. Everyone in my circle was talking about it. So I wrote a post calling Dovercourt Village the next Ossington. I had no idea it would get the traction that it has gotten, but in hindsight it makes total sense. It makes a great headline: “Toronto’s ugliest street to become the next Ossington.” Boom.

  The tough question that Matt Galloway asked me this morning was: What happens to all the blue collar businesses when/if Geary Avenue and the area really takes off? My response – given that it was only a 5 minute radio piece – was that it comes down to preservation vs. progress. 

  This is a topic that I’ve written about with respect to heritage buildings, but the same concept applies to communities as well. How do you allow neighborhoods to receive new investment while at the same time not erasing its past and the things that made it interesting in the first place?

  It’s not easy, that’s for sure.

  I absolutely believe that there are things that developers can do to respect the neighborhoods in which they build in. But at the same time there are economics at play. In business school, they teach you this:

  

  It’s the lifecycle of businesses and industries. 

  The key takeaway here is that the rise and decline of businesses is actually quite healthy for markets. History is littered with examples. The word processor replaced the typewriter. The mobile phone replaced the landline. Air travel replaced rail travel. And the list goes on.

  Today, I think we’re at a moment in time where our relationship to cars is changing dramatically. How we get around and how we own and operate them is being called into question. 

  So just because there’s auto shops on Geary Avenue today, doesn’t mean they’ll be there tomorrow regardless of whether the area takes off or not.

  2015.02.17

• Mirvish+Gehry architectural model

  

  The developers behind the much talked about Mirvish+Gehry project in Toronto (Projectcore) recently released a video showcasing the architectural model. It’s a great way to see the project from every angle. Click here if you can’t see it below.

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mka2kVUCyDk]

  I’ve written about this project a number of times before and my view has always been that I’m excited by the project, but that I don’t think we should be demolishing all of the heritage buildings on-site. This latest scheme – with two towers ranging from 82 and 92 storeys – is the result of that compromise.

  What are your thoughts on Mirvish+Gehry? And what do you think the condos will ultimately go to market at? My guess would be somewhere around $1,000 per square foot.

  2015.02.07

• Our fixation with height

  

  Last summer a development application was submitted for a 57 storey mixed-use tower on the south end of Toronto’s historic Distillery District. 

  It’s the tower on the right hand side of the picture above. The 2 towers on the left are existing, although they’re quite recent. The development site is currently a parking lot and it abuts a railway corridor to the south.

  The reason I bring up this project now is because I recently saw this notice go out from the Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association. It’s an announcement for a public meeting that I believe just happened earlier this week (I think they meant to say 2015 instead of 2014).

  After I saw the notice, I decided to share the rendering on social media to see what people thought of the proposal. The general consensus seemed to be that the tower looked a bit cookie cutter (though to be fair it’s hard to tell from renderings like this) and that 57 storeys was simply too tall for the area. I got comments back like “enough is enough.”

  Now, I’m not here to say that 57 storeys is exactly the right height for this building and this location (though it might be), but I am saying that I don’t think it’s as important as most people think it is. I think we’ve become over-fixated on height, at the expense of other important design issues.

  Part of this has to do with how we communicate projects and how we tell the story. If you look at the city’s website for this project, you’ll see that this is how it’s explained:

  The City has received an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for a 57-storey mixed use tower and a 5-storey commercial building containing 496 residential dwellings, 5,048 square metres of retail gross floor area, and 21,243 square metres of office gross floor area. The 5-storey commercial building is within the Distillery District, and the 57 storey tower is immediately south west of the Distillery District.

  About the only thing that I think most people (outside of the industry) would understand are the heights of the buildings. Everything else – from the Official Plan Amendment to the number of square metres of gross retail area – is likely lost. 

  So it’s actually not surprising that most people just look at one or two renderings and the number of storeys, and then make a judgement call about whether or not it would be a positive thing for the city.

  Now, I know why we communicate projects in such a clinical way. It’s to appear impartial. But there are so many other considerations when it comes to great city building. 

  How does the building meet the street? What are the first couple of floors like at eye-level? What’s the materiality? What would the experience be like for someone having a coffee on a patio outside of the building? What kind of commercial tenants will there be? Is there a unique leasing/programming strategy? What’s the overall vision for the project?

  Again, I’m not saying that height is completely irrelevant. I simply fear that we might be losing sight of the bigger picture. The Distillery District is a magical place in Toronto. It’s hands down one of my favorite places to be. In fact, I’ll be there this weekend for a Winterlicious dinner. But I honestly couldn’t tell you how tall the existing towers are. Are they in the 40s? 

  I could, however, tell you exactly what it’s like to walk down the Distillery’s intimate cobblestone streets and sit on a patio with a beer in hand. It’s a beautiful thing.

  Note: I have zero affiliation with this project.

  Image: City of Toronto

  2015.01.30

• An example of low-rise intensification: Union Street EcoHeritage

  

  In yesterday’s post about the 3 stages of intensification, I mentioned a project in Vancouver called Union Street EcoHeritage by SHAPE Architecture. I used it as an example for sensitive low-rise intensification.

  Since it’s a very cool project (and most of you probably didn’t click through), I thought I would dedicate today’s post to explaining the project.

  The picture at the top of this post is what it looks like today (the front elevation). If you were to pass by it, I suspect most of you would just think it was a pair of renovated single family homes. But there’s much more to it. What started out as only 2 dwellings, ended up as a site for 7 dwellings.

  Here’s the before shot:

  

  The homes were moved and actually raised up in order to accommodate additional density. Here’s a section that better explains what was done (black is existing; green is new):

  

  The 2 existing homes were raised up so that an additional dwelling unit could be placed beneath each one. At the same time, additional units were added in the rear, both attached to the existing homes and at the back of the site facing the laneway. And so this project is actually one part laneway house.

  Here’s a photo of what that rear interior space looks like (it’s stunning):

  

  Not surprisingly, this project won a bunch of awards and has been widely celebrated as an affordable housing solution. It’s exciting to see Vancouver take the lead on low-rise intensification. It’s one of the reasons that I think it’s only a matter of time before Toronto starts to look towards similar solutions.

  Images: SHAPE Architecture Inc.

  2015.01.28