Tag: real estate

• I’m back from Startup Weekend

  

  I usually write on Architect This City every day. But this past weekend I skipped both Saturday and Sunday, which is something I haven’t done in the 15 months that I’ve been writing this blog. I hate missing days. I really do. But I had no choice. I was at Startup Weekend here in Toronto.

  For those of you unfamiliar with the global Startup Weekend initiative, let me tell you how it works.

  Last Friday night, hundreds of people from Toronto’s startup community convened at the MakeWorks coworking space in Toronto’s west end to pitch and hear new business ideas. The floor is always open to anyone who would like to pitch, but you only have 60 seconds (hard stop) to convince the crowd that your idea is worth pursuing. This past weekend there were about 40 pitches.

  Following the pitches, the crowd then gets to vote on their favorite ideas. The top pitches – there were 13 selected this past weekend – get to move on and the people who delivered those pitches become team leaders. They are then asked to get up one more time to tell the crowd who they need to develop their idea over the weekend. Once that happens, everyone starts scrambling around to try and put together a team. It’s all about hustle.

  Immediately after the teams are formed, the work starts.

  By Sunday at 5pm, you’re expected to have validated your idea and problem in front of real people, executed on some sort of minimum viable product (the solution), and ideally brought in some of your initial customers. Because at the end of the weekend, all the teams get up and deliver a 5 minute pitch in front of a panel of judges who assess you on how well you did against those 3 objectives.

  It’s a weekend of raw adrenaline. I wouldn’t be surprised if I lost about 5-10 pounds as a result of how little food I ate and how much coffee I consumed.

  I pitched a real estate related idea – just like I did 2 years ago at the last Startup Weekend I attended – and I was fortunate enough to win the top pitch on Friday night. I think it may have been because I said fuck in my pitch. Although, a lot of people also remembered me from the previous Startup Weekend and started calling me “Mr. Real Estate.”

  Pitch 11 – Brandon dropping F bombs. Let others tell you the value of your home. #SWTO

  — Startup Weekend (@startupwkndTO)

  November 22, 2014

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Our team ultimately didn’t place – which may have been because it was an Internet of Things themed Startup Weekend and we weren’t that – but I think we developed a super solid business idea.

  Either way, I had a blast. We knocked on people’s doors to validate our idea. We got a ton of positive feedback on what we were trying to do. And I was fortunate enough to meet a bunch of smart and ambitious people. I was so impressed by what our team accomplished.

  But what I also love about events like Startup Weekend is that it shows you how vibrant the startup ecosystem really is in Toronto. There is no shortage of passionate entrepreneurs in this city fighting to change the world. And what’s great about this community is that they all know how hard it is to start something from nothing, and so they’re incredibly supportive. 

  If you have any interest, I would encourage you to check out events like Startup Weekend. They’re a lot of fun and they all contribute to the greatness of this city.

  Image: The Unlyst Team at Startup Weekend TO 2014 (Jerry, Louis, Landon, and me)

  2014.11.25

• Belval: From Luxembourg’s largest steelworks to mixed-use community

  Early this morning, before the sun even came up here in Toronto, I had a video conference call with a sharp and talented entrepreneur in Luxembourg. His name is Fräntz Miccoli and he’s working on an interesting startup called KonnectR.

  The idea is to create a platform to connect with new people at any point in time and wherever you might happen to be. It may sound like a “hook-up” app, but that’s not the intent. He came about the idea while traveling and looking for other smart and engaging people to hang out with.

  When we started the video conference call this morning, I showed him my window so that he could see the sun just starting to rise. He then showed me his coworking space, which made it seem like he is working out of an old industrial steel mill. Turns out, he is.

  The area of Luxembourg he’s working out of is called Belval, which is a neighborhood in the west end of the country’s second largest city, Esch-sur-Alzette. The neighborhood used to consist of the largest steelworks in the country. But with the decline of steel production in Luxembourg, the area fell into decline. Today, it’s being reborn as a 21st century mixed-use community.

  The developer behind the project is called Agora. And the site – equal to about 120 soccer fields – will house everything from residences and offices to shopping and cultural institutions. The University of Luxembourg has also centralized their campus in the new neighborhood. Having institutions “anchor” a community is becoming quite common for urban renewal programs. Here in Toronto, we did a similar thing with George Brown College along the waterfront.

  To give you a better sense of the transformation taking place in Belval, here’s a streetview photo from 2009:

  

  Here’s another one from the same intersection in 2013 (notice the same tower in the background):

  

  And here’s an aerial view from 2010:

  

  I’m always fascinated by urban renewal projects of this scale because it so clearly speaks to the evolutionary nature of cities. Industries die. Businesses disappear. And new uses need to be found. In this case, the area has gone from steel production to tech startups. That’s not surprising.

  But at the same time, I think it’s important that we don’t completely erase the past. Here, I think it’s great that they’re preserving some of the blast furnaces and other industrial structures. It gives the area character and a sense of place – which is oftentimes hard to manufacture and always better when it’s authentic.

  2014.11.18

• The hypocrisy of parking minimums

  

  Earlier today, Christopher Hume of the Toronto Star published a review of The Residences at RCMI building currently under construction on University Avenue. He gave the building a ‘B’ grade. 

  His main criticism was the faux facade that has been integrated into the base of the building:

  Then there’s the question of the historic 1907 building the RCMI occupied until recently. Though listed as a heritage site in 1973, the city approved its demolition. Planners also allowed the neo-classical front façade to be replaced with a replica that will fool no one, another example of the city talking out of both sides of its mouth.

  But faux facades aside, one of the things that makes this development project unique in Toronto is actually something that you can’t see from the outside: there’s no resident parking. Apparently there’s 9 spots for deliveries and other short-term uses, but for the 315 suites in the building there’s no parking.

  Depending on where in the world you’re from this may not seem like a big deal. I’ve written before about minimum and maximum parking requirements, and how some cities – such as Berlin – don’t have them. But here in Toronto, we do. And the city generally takes them very seriously.

  “To assume a residential development of the project’s scale might be totally car-free runs counter to expert study and experience,” municipal staffers argued. “Although there are many households in the downtown without cars, it would be highly unlikely to find 315 of them permanently concentrated in one building.”

  The fact planners were dead wrong is a shocking sign of a department either out of touch or that doesn’t believe its own hype.

  In so many ways – as Hume pointed out in his article – this is complete hypocrisy. We’re always talking about building walkable communities and encouraging alternate forms of mobility, but when it comes time to build anything new, we force a certain number of parking spots to be included. And so we end up encouraging the exact opposite.

  This also has a significant impact on the way we build our cities. Parking minimums can actually render smaller sites “undevelopable” simply because there isn’t enough room to lay out the required parking. In fact, it might surprise you how much of what we do ends up being governed by cars, parking, and traffic.

  That’s why I think this image is so impactful:

  The most accurate representation of the public space we give up for cars. Courtesy of @tchebotarev 🙂 #athiscity pic.twitter.com/KBUX0Td4fj

  — Brandon G. Donnelly (@donnelly_b)

  November 13, 2014

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  But I’m certain that a lot of this will change as Toronto continues to grow. Progressive cities all around the world are rethinking their positions on parking, and on cars in general.

  Earlier this year Sao Paulo joined the club and got rid of parking minimums for sites along major transit corridors. And they actually imposed a parking maximum: 1 spot per residence. The expectation is that this will reduce traffic and improve housing affordability.

  Parking minimums may not seem like a big deal, but the reality is that their impacts are far reaching. They change development patterns, they change project economics, and they send a message about the kind of city you hope to build.

  Image: Looking south on University Avenue in Toronto (Flickr)

  2014.11.15

• Making city planning cool again

  

  This morning my friend Mackenzie Keast – who is famous and was on the radio in Toronto today talking about The Laneway Project – sent me an interesting article from the Guardian talking about the marginalization and growing irrelevance of city planners. It’s called: For the sake of our cities, it’s time to make town planning cool again.

  The gist of the article is as follows:

  While the cult of the star architect has soared over the decades and property developers have displaced bankers as the new super-rich, the figure of the local town planner has become comic shorthand for a certain kind of faceless, under-whelming dullard.

  But what really stood out for me are the following two things. First, that people are genuinely interested in cities. I would say that it’s almost trendy to be into cities these days.

  Urbanism may have displaced cultural theory as the favoured subject of the academic hipster, but talented young men and women rarely consider becoming town planners.

  And second, that we’ve made it difficult for these same interested people to participate in the planning process.

  Planners have become simultaneously under-respected and over-professionalised. Their training and practice too often leaves them able to communicate effectively only with other planners and professionals, working in an abstract language that alienates them from people. People are occasionally allowed into the professional planner’s world, but in highly mediated terms dictated by the profession.

  This stands out for me because I think that architecture is in a somewhat similar position. I often joke that the more architecture training someone has, the more likely they’re going to like buildings that the rest of the world doesn’t. It all becomes quite insular – just like the Guardian is arguing with respect to planning.

  And that may in fact be the reason for the marginalization of both planners and architects (minus the few starchitects that have a distinct brand and can command a premium). If the general public doesn’t like what you do or understand how you create value, why should they care?

  I’ve written before about the future of the architecture profession, as well as the reasons for why I decided to never practice architecture. So I won’t repeat it all here.

  But I will say that it had nothing to do with me not loving architecture. Because I do and always will. Instead, it was about recognizing that professions are not set in stone. Just like pretty much everything else in this world, they can and will be reinvented.

  Image: The Guardian / PA
  

  2014.11.12

• In search of affordable housing

  Earlier this week I stumbled upon this entertaining article from the Guardian talking about how expensive housing is in London. The author’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion was to setup a new miniature London in the middle of nowhere where everyone could flock for affordable housing, but where many of London’s attributes could be exported: “We can all refuse to wear socks and sell each other overpriced cocktails in jam jars.”

  All joking aside, the article is yet another reminder that big global cities are expensive places to live. And in these cities, one of the most precious commodities is, quite simply, personal space. That’s why a garage in London can sell for £550,000 and why a 35 square foot storage cage in New York can sell for $75,000. 

  But affordable housing is not the reason why people want to live in places like London and New York. If it were, they wouldn’t be coming. Instead, they come for lifestyle, wealth creation, and the dating market – among other things. However, at a certain point, usually when they form families and start to need/want more space, they start looking around.

  Here’s an infographic via the Atlantic showing how relationship status impacts where people tend to live in London. The purple areas indicate an “above average concentration” of a particular relationship status. As you can see, single people tend to live in the core of the city, and when they get married, they move out to the periphery. Intuitively, this probably makes sense to you.

  

  However, I’m always curious as to whether this trend happens more because of consumer preference (people don’t want to raise kids downtown) or because of economic necessity (they can’t afford anything beyond a shoe box apartment). Because if it is largely out of economic necessity (and the Guardian article would suggest it is), then we’re not creating the inclusive cities and neighborhoods that all city builders like to talk about.

  So how do we get better at this?

  In my view, and I’ve argued this before, the first step should be about improving supply. That is: get more housing built. And the way to start doing that is to make land available and improve the approvals process for new developments. In a recent McKinsey report, they referred to my first point as “unlocking land.”

  “Land cost often is the single biggest factor in improving the economics of affordable housing development. It is not uncommon for land costs to exceed 40 percent of total property prices, and in some large cities, land can be as much as 80 percent of property cost.”

  The reason this is important is because most big cities operate with massive supply deficits. There simply isn’t enough housing. And so if you can address that at a fundamental level, you can actually do a lot to start improving affordability.

  2014.10.31

• The first summit on laneways

  

  Last month I wrote about an upcoming city building event in Toronto called called Engaging In-Between Spaces. It’s being hosted by a non-profit group called The Laneway Project and it’s going to be this city’s “first summit on laneways.”

  While many people associate the potential of Toronto’s laneways with laneway housing, the focus of this event will be on laneways in a much broader context. Laneway housing will certainly be a part of it, but the event will also look at our laneways as public spaces, gathering spaces, and so on.

  I’m going to be giving a short presentation that looks at Toronto’s laneways from a real estate development perspective, and so I hope that you’ll be able to attend. The event is only $10 and the money will help support the group’s mission of transforming our laneways into vibrant, safe, and people-friendly spaces. 

  Click here to reserve your spot. And if you are attending, please tweet me so that we can connect at the event!

  2014.10.30

• How wise are crowds?

  Earlier this week I wrote a post about a new build home under construction at 37 Canerouth Drive in the west end of Toronto. As part of that post, I asked people what they thought the home would be valued at when it was completed. There were just under 10 responses (many thanks!) and I thought it was really fascinating to see the ranges.

  A lot of you responded in the comment section of the post, but a bunch of the other estimates came in via Facebook, Twitter, and email. It isn’t a huge data set, but I’ve nonetheless consolidated the ones I could remember I received:

  $2,375,000
  $2,750,000
  $1,800,000
  $3,000,000
  $8,500,000
  $2,600,000
  $3,500,000
  $1,750,000

  If you average these estimates, you come to a value of $3.3M. However, the clear outlier is the $8.5M. So let’s take that one out and see how the number changes. If you do that, you then get an average estimate of $2.5M. A pretty big swing.

  Now, I don’t know offhand how accurate that number really is, but I’m fascinated by this idea of “the crowd” determining value. Particularly for markets such as housing where supply can be completely heterogeneous and there isn’t a lot of transaction volume to refer back to (compared to other types of markets).

  Because my strong belief is that under the right circumstances and with enough data points, this number could end up being hugely accurate. And, it could also be more forward looking since it’s capturing current market sentiment as opposed to being based on historical transaction prices.

  If you have any thoughts on this, I’d love to hear from you 🙂

  2014.10.24

• London garage to sell for £550,000

  

  The garage shown above (with the pseudo green roof) is located in the Chelsea neighborhood of London. It measures about 11’ x 7’ and it – along with the site it sits on – is about to go up for auction.

  It’s expected to go for more than £550,000 according to the DailyMail UK, which would make it the most expensive garage ever sold in the UK. The site area is 535 square foot – about the size of an average 1 bedroom condo in Toronto.

  Below is an aerial view of the site. It basically looks to be residual land.

  

  But as awkward as this site might appear, the expected value is being driven by the fact that planning permissions were granted to turn it into this:

  

  It’s a 2 bedroom house that feels a lot like a laneway house. It certainly fits the description of “a house behind a house”, which is often how laneway housing gets described here in Toronto.

  I wanted to share it because it supports my belief that, sooner or later, Toronto will come around to laneway housing. As property prices rise and affordability continues to erode, people will – quite justifiably – start looking in all sorts of new places for a decent urban home.

  Many thanks to my friend Adrian for sending me the link.

  2014.10.17

• Revisiting Charlotte

  

  Earlier this week, I wrote about the Charlotte Apartments in Berlin and tried to back into some of the numbers for the project. I wanted to compare the economics behind a mid-rise project in Berlin to one in Toronto.

  After I wrote that post I forwarded it to Michels Architecture – who are the architects behind the project. I thought they might be interested in reading about my (crappy) back of the napkin type of assessment and I was also hoping that they might be able to shed some additional light on the details.

  Well, they responded and graciously offered to do exactly that. So today I thought I would write a follow-up post with some additional details. I obviously don’t have everything – because they weren’t the developer for the project – but I still think you’ll find the information I got interesting.

  The building has a total of 3 parking spots and they’re all on the ground floor (you can see them in this post in the second photo towards the right). They were for the penthouse maisonette/duplex units. This means that there’s only one level below grade and it’s basically for mechanical systems, storage, and waste disposal. So why does this matter?

  It matters because it means lower construction costs and the ability to develop smaller sites where you may not be able to properly layout a parking garage without car elevators and other clever strategies. This is possible because, unlike Toronto, Berlin doesn’t have any parking minimums or maximums. 

  With respect to unit sizes, the penthouse units are 135 square meters or 1,453 square feet which, according to the architect, are small. From the 2nd to 6th floor, there are 4 units per floor and the sizes are 37 sm / 398 sf, 65 sm / 699 sf, 68 sm / 732 sf, and 81 sm / 872 sf. On the ground floor there are 5 units and they’re at 34 sm / 366 sf (x 2), 42 sm / 452 sf, 45 sm / 484 sf, and 76 sm / 818 sf. I would say that this is comparable to what you might find in a downtown Toronto condo project. Side note: Apparently the smallest units sold the quickest.

  As of December 2011, the average sale price was 4,120 € per square meter. At today’s exchange rate, that would convert to $5,815 per square meter or $540 per square foot (in Canadian dollars). If we translate that into 2014 dollars, that’s about $575 per square foot, which would be low for prime locations/buildings in Toronto.

  A big thanks to Michels Architecture for providing this additional information. It’s always great to get local insights. I hope you all enjoyed it – happy Friday.

  Images: Werner Huthmacher

  2014.10.10

• What the largest real estate development project in the United States looks like

  

  Urban Land Magazine recently published an interesting article on the Hudson Yards project in New York, which is the largest private real estate development project ever undertaken in the United States. Click here for the article. Thanks to my friend Evan Schlecker for passing it along. It’s a good read.

  The project is being co-developed by Related out of New York and Oxford Properties out of Toronto, and when it’s all said and done, it’ll be over 17 million square feet of commercial and residential space. It’s a $20 billion development project. 

  

  But beyond just being massive and epic, there are a bunch of other things that make this project unique. You can read about them all in Urban Land, but I’d like to share a few snippets with you all here:

  The first is about the project’s placement on top of a rail yard:

  In order to make use of a site already occupied by a working rail yard—including more than 30 tracks for the Long Island Rail Road and three train tunnels, with a fourth under construction—most of the development will be built atop two steel-and-concrete platforms. That base, and the buildings on it, will be supported by hundreds of concrete-filled caissons, which will be drilled between the rail lines into the bedrock.

  Because the location of the tracks and tunnels limits the placement of caissons, only 38 percent of the site can be used to support buildings.

  The second is about the project’s use of technology:

  Beyond that, a vast number of sensors embedded in the site’s infrastructure will collect mountains of data on everything from temperature and air quality to pedestrian and vehicle traffic. That information, which will be scrutinized in real time by managers in an effort to fine-tune Hudson Yards’ operation, will also be shared with New York University (NYU) researchers, who will turn Hudson Yards into a laboratory for studying urban life and finding ways to improve its quality.

  And the last one is about how it interfaces with the High Line (click here if you don’t know what that is):

  Pedersen [of Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates] found an intriguing way to address the building’s surroundings. He allowed the High Line—a public park built on a historic freight rail line elevated above the West Side—to penetrate underneath the tower through a 60-foot-long (18.3 m) public passageway, so that the building will interact with the park and its visitors. Inside the building, a dramatic atrium “becomes the terminus of the High Line as it moves from south to north,” he says.

  So there are a lot of interesting and exciting things going on with this project. What’s amazing though is how “vertical” this community will be. You have rail lines below grade. Platforms on top. Retail at grade and across multiple levels. And an elevated linear park cutting through the buildings. Not every city can make this work. New York can.

  Images: Hudson Yards New York

  2014.10.09