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: seattle

  • BC now allows single egress stair buildings up to 6 storeys

    The province of British Columbia made the following announcement this week:

    The Province has updated the BCBC to remove the [building] code requirement for a second egress, or exit, stairwell per floor in buildings up to six storeys. This change will make it possible to build housing projects on smaller lots and in different configurations, while allowing more flexibility for multi-bedroom apartments, more density within areas of transit-oriented developments and the potential to improve energy efficiency in buildings. Previously, the BCBC called for at least two egress stairwells in buildings three storeys and higher.

    This is meaningful progress. And BC is the leading the way in Canada. But from a global perspective, we are not leading the way. This is us catching up.

    As part of this building code change, the province commissioned a report on single egress stair building designs. In this report, they looked at various jurisdictions from around the world:

    Their non-exhaustive findings:

    There are at least 30 jurisdictions with SES building design requirements that permit midrise buildings with a building height of at least 5 or 6 storeys. In addition, the Center for Building in North America (www.centerforbuilding.org) reports that 8 US states have passed legislation into law, or are reviewing possible options for doing so, to allow larger SES buildings when their Building Code is next revised. In most cases these revisions are intended to allow SES buildings of up to 6 storeys.

    For example, Seattle already allows up to 6 storeys. Belgium, New Zealand, and Australia allow up to 9 storeys (driven by a maximum height in meters). And Finland allows up to 18 storeys, according to the report.

    Though keep in mind that building codes are complicated and often have frustrating gray areas. There may be other requirements that need to be met in order to achieve these heights.

    It’s great to see BC making these moves. Now watch for other provinces to follow suit.

  • Toward the childless city

    There is a common narrative that, when it comes time to start a family and have kids, you should probably consider moving to the suburbs. Sure, you’ll have a painful commute, but you’ll get more space for your money, and maybe you’ll end up with better kids.

    I don’t know, obviously not everyone agrees with this. I certainly don’t.

    But it is something that commonly happens and, in many cities, it is now happening more often. Here is a map from the Centre for London showing the change in the proportion of households with at least one dependent child from 2001 to 2021:

    A darker borough means that it lost households with at least one child. And a lighter borough means that it gained more kids. Why this is concerning is that it means the trendline is toward more, and not less, childless cities. Here’s an excerpt from a recent FT article:

    A future with dwindling numbers of children is one many cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC, are grappling with. In Hong Kong, for every adult over 65 there are, to put it crudely, 0.7 children, and in Tokyo it is even fewer (0.5).

    Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. And we know the main drivers:

    Randal Cremer is one of several planned primary school closures and mergers in inner London triggered by low birth rates, families moving away because of expensive childcare, Brexit, and parents re-evaluating their lives during the pandemic. The biggest factor, says Riley, is that “housing is just becoming unaffordable”. Philip Glanville, mayor of Hackney, calls it “the acute affordability crisis”.

    So how do we start to solve this? Here are a few ideas that we recently talked about on the blog, but it is by no means an exhaustive list. In my opinion, this is a problematic trend that deserves a lot more attention. Because cities are at their best when they work for everyone — from the young to the old.

  • Real estate investors are outbidding people who own strollers

    Here’s a potential scenario:

    “When you have investors competing with first-time buyers who walk in with a couple of [baby] strollers, typically the investor is going to win,” Mr. Pasalis says. “They are well capitalized. They can pay a higher price. And this is why our home ownership rate is declining, because more and more homes are actually going into the hands of investors who rent them out, and amplifying home and amplifying condo prices. We are seeing that.”

    But let’s break this down a little.

    Where are these first-time buyers walking into? Is it a resale home showing or is it a pre-construction showroom? If it’s the latter, then we know it’s going to be difficult / atypical for them to make a buy decision so far in advance. They already have multiple strollers in hand, do they want to wait 4-7 years for their pre-construction home to be ready?

    I would also add that in our current environment — where investor demand for pre-construction homes has waned significantly — the development industry has not seen a marked uptick in end-user demand. Why are they not stepping up now that they’re not being outbid by investors? In my opinion, it’s an ideal time to buy!

    One reason could be that people who own strollers still largely prefer low-rise housing. Maybe it’s for reasons of affordability, maybe it’s a cultural bias, or maybe it’s a genuine preference. Either way, let’s turn our attention to resale homes. In this scenario, who is likely to pay the most?

    If you’re an investor, then you are looking for a specific yield. And so in theory, it should be a mostly dispassionate decision: “Here’s the most that I can pay in order to meet my minimum returns. Do not exceed.” But the question is whether is this is going to be more or less than what a stroller-owning group of people would pay.

    The answer is probably that it depends. However, if the answer is that the investor wins and they then turn around and rent it to people who own strollers, is this actually a problem? And if this same investor happens to own 25 other rental homes and they’re all rented to people who own strollers, is this an even greater problem?

    I suppose it is a problem if you’re worried about Canada’s homeownership rate, which has in fact declined from about 69% (in 2011) to 66.5% (in 2021). But what does this even mean? Is a higher homeownership rate always better? Does Canada have a target number? As of February of this year, the homeownership rate in Switzerland was only about 36.3%. And the last time I checked, it was still a rich country.

    There is nothing wrong with renting. I know wealthy people who have opted to rent their entire life because they enjoyed the flexibility and/or had better places to put their money.

    All of this said, the argument in the above scenario is that, but for investors outbidding people with strollers, these homes would be more affordable and that would in turn increase the homeownership rate. It’s a similar argument to, but for foreign buyers or but for Airbnbs, these homes would be more affordable.

    But in a city like Toronto, we are building very little in the way of new low-rise houses. New supply is virtually non-existent. Similarly in Seattle, they are now building more accessory dwelling units than they are single-family houses. So it is any wonder that demand is constantly outstripping supply and that prices are being bid up?

    In my opinion, a better solution is to rethink how we build our low-rise neighborhoods. And here and here are two good places to start.

  • The case for point access blocks

    We have spoken before about buildings, such as this 6-storey one in Paris, that were allowed to be built with only a single exit stair. This is noteworthy because, here in Canada, if you were to try and build an equivalent 6-storey building on an equivalent 100 square meter site, you would be required to have two exit stairs. And that would create more non-leasable space and make it even more challenging to develop such a small building.

    It is for this reason that single-stair buildings have been getting an increasing amount of attention as of late. They are seen as a way of encouraging more missing middle housing.

    So where are single-stair buildings currently allowed? Below is a map from Seattle-based Larch Lab showing the maximum number of storeys for point access blocks (what they call single-stair buildings) around the world. Based on this, Canada is one of the most conservative countries on the planet when it comes to required exiting (I don’t want to speak for any of the grayed-out countries). It also shows that much of the world allows 6 or more storeys.

    Larch Lab is a major advocate for point access blocks and they have this policy brief outlining the problem and the opportunities. One of their most interesting statistics has to do with minimum project size inflation. As recent as 2000, only about 13% of all multifamily completions in the US had more than 50 units. Today, this number has jumped to more than 55% of all new multifamily buildings, meaning we are quickly losing our ability to build small and intimate.

    Point access blocks can help with this.

    Of course, the reason we have exiting requirements in our building codes is because of life safety. But there’s research to suggest that this level of redundancy may not be needed in certain buildings. According to the above policy brief, the average death rate (caused by a building) in point access block countries like Switzerland, France, Italy and Germany, is significantly lower than that of the US. On top of this, almost no countries in the EU require buildings less than 28m tall to be sprinklered. The US does.

    All of this said, I don’t think that single-stair buildings are a silver bullet for missing middle housing. It is just one important ingredient in a complicated recipe. And as evidence of this, we can look to Seattle. The 2018 Seattle Building Code allows point access blocks up to 6 storeys, which is a rare occurrence in the US. However, the city appears to be still working on missing middle reform. Presumably other ingredients are still — missing.

    Image: Larch Lab

  • Seattle is building more accessory dwellings than single-family houses

    In 2019, Seattle made it easier to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Among other things, they started allowing two ADUs per lot, they stopped requiring the owner to live on site, and they stopped requiring off-street parking. The result is that the city is now permitting close to 1,000 ADUs per year (2022 figure). And for the first time ever, this figure now exceeds the number of permits issued for single-family houses.

    Part of what’s driving this adoption is that the City created 10 pre-approved plans that owners/builders can choose from. And since they were launched in September 2020, these plans have been permitted 130 times. (Los Angeles did something very similar with its “standard plan program.”)

    In general though, Seattle’s policies seem more permissive than what we have here in Toronto. According to this recent “annual report”, it is estimated that about 12% of ADUs in Seattle are licensed as short-term rentals. About a third are also being permitted as condominiums. In Toronto, any sort of severance is heavily discouraged. The objective was and is to create new rental housing.

    But for Seattle, this seems to be creating more affordable homes for sale. The median selling price for an ADU is apparently $732,000, compared to $1.2 million for a single-family house. This sounds kind of good.

    Image: The Seattle Times

  • What Seattle learned from its electric scooter pilot program

    Electric scooters are an unsanctioned form of mobility here in Toronto, mostly because people think they’re dangerous, but also because I think people are worried about them cluttering up our sidewalks.

    The problem with this position is that electric scooters are also a lot of fun to ride and people seem to find them useful. The last time I rode one was in Paris and it seemed perfectly safe to me, though it may have been because there were two of us on it and we were kind of overloading the thing.

    In any event, lots of cities either have them or are piloting them. Seattle just finished year one of its pilot program and here’s what they learned:

    • From September 2020 to October 2021, Seattle saw 1.4 million trips taken by over 260,000 riders
    • Electric scooter ridership greatly exceeded that of public bicycles, with 300,000 scooter trips taken in September alone, compared to about 35,000 bike trips
    • 54% of surveyed scooter riders said that they would have taken a taxi or driven their personal vehicle had a scooter not been available
    • 21% of riders said that they used it to connect to public transit (helping to solve that pesky last-mile problem)
    • 17 collisions involving a scooter and a car were reported during the pilot year (though, for what it’s worth, some/many of the incidents involved a scooter that was privately owned and not part of the actual pilot program)

    As much as I love riding a bike, it’s a bit more of a commitment compared to riding an e-scooter, which is why I think the numbers look the way that they do here. Not everybody wants to bring a change of clothes and shower at the office.

    So I think it’s really too bad that Toronto just shut these down before exploring ways to make them both safe and useful.

  • Where US students want to live after college

    Axios and Generation Lab have something new called the Next Cities Index. The goal is to track US work and culture trends through people’s geographic preferences. For their first cities index, they asked over 2,100 students in the US, on two separate occasions, the following question: “Considering all factors that matter to you, where would you most like to live after college?”

    The aggregate answer to this question is shown above. But they also collected people’s incomes (anticipated since they’re students?), political affiliations, and gender. The list of cities changes slightly when you sort based on these different factors, but not by much. Seattle, New York, and Los Angeles remain top cities — at least in people’s minds.

    It is, however, interesting to note that about 45% of respondents had different answers to where they want to live and where they think they will live. For a number of reasons, the city of people’s dreams isn’t often a practical or realistic choice it would seem. Still, wanting a particular place still tells you certain things I suppose.

    Given all the chatter over this pandemic, I would have thought that Miami would have appeared higher up on this want list.

    Chart: Axios/Generation Lab

  • Largest US cities grew faster and became more diverse over the last decade

    The last decade has been pretty good for many cities. Recent 2020 Census data tells us that of the 50 largest cities in the US, 46 of them grew their population over the last 10 years. On average, these 50 cities grew by about 8.5%, compared to 5.6% for the decade between 2000-2010.

    As you might expect, the fastest growing cities tended to be in the south and the west. The top 3 fastest growing cities over the last decade were Fort Worth (24%), Austin (21.7%), and Seattle (21.1%). The cities with the biggest population declines were Detroit (-10.5%), Baltimore (-5.7%), Milwaukee (-3%).

    It’s important to keep in mind that city boundaries can skew these numbers depending on how they are drawn. A declining “city” population doesn’t necessarily mean that the broader urban area is losing people. Though it does still tell you something about the “city.”

    Another thing that happened over the last decade is that most of the largest US cities continued to become more diverse. In 2000, white populations were a majority (>50%) in 25 of the 50 largest cities. This dropped to 17 cities in 2010 and then 14 cities last year (2020). Meaning that 36 of the largest cities are now “white minority” cities.

    For more data check out this recent article from Brookings.

  • Apartment rents in San Francisco have yet to fully recover

    On last week’s earnings call, apartment landlord Equity Residential mentioned that the two US markets most impacted by a delayed return to office appear to be San Francisco and Seattle. They went on to say that San Francisco is the only market in which they operate where rents have not fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels.

    According to Bloomberg (which is relying on employee swipe-card data), office utilization in the San Francisco area is sitting at around 25% as of October 20, 2021. This is compared to a national average of around 37%. The obvious rationale here is that large tech companies have delayed their return to office and/or been more aggressive in adopting remote/hybrid work.

    Looking at these numbers, it is clear that as someone who has been going into the office every day since the start of summer, I am currently in the minority.

  • The Canadian Dream

    This has become a frequently reported topic, but here’s a recent article from Wired talking about tech workers living out the American Dream — in Canada. The story is pretty simple. Immigrants are smart and work hard. Canada has a system in place that privileges newcomers who are young and smart. And this has become a boon for our largest city and for the country. Here are two excerpts from the article:

    But there’s a new global winner: Canada, and particularly Toronto. Since 2013, the tech scene there has grown faster than in any other North American city. In 2017, Toronto added more tech jobs than Seattle, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Washington, DC, combined; in 2018 (the most recent year for which numbers are available), the city was second only to the Bay Area in new tech jobs. Toronto is so crammed with immigrants that nearly 50 percent of all residents were born outside the country.

    Canada’s immigration policy is hardly warm and fuzzy. On the contrary, it’s icily calculating. The government loves educated, elite newcomers, because they help propel the economy, says immigration lawyer Peter Rekai, but it wants them young, so they won’t drain the public health care system. Their parents are much less welcome.

    In the first quarter of this year, international migration accounted for 82.3% of Canada’s population growth. And at the beginning of this year, Ottawa was planning for up to 370,000 new permanent residents. It is highly unlikely that we hit that number given our current health crisis, but I have no doubts in my mind that we will hit it in the very near term. And when we do, it will be a good thing for Toronto.