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.

Tag: toronto

  • The great balcony debate

    I snapped this picture on College Street near Spadina Avenue (Toronto) yesterday:

    image

    It’s a picture of “The College” by Tribute Communities. What you’re looking at is the northwest corner of the building and a 20,000 sf grocery store fronting onto College Street.

    I took a picture of the building for really two reasons. 

    1. The colored balcony enclosures on the west elevation (right side of the picture) are not something I’ve ever seen done on a Toronto condo before. I like color. I also wonder if they create interesting interior lighting effects and greater privacy when you’re outside.

    2. I have been noticing more Juliet/French balconies on new builds as of late (could be an availability bias). Here they’re on the north elevation fronting onto College Street. Once the building steps back, you get conventional balconies. 

    I think Juliet balconies create a much nicer streetwall, particularly when used on a building’s lower floors. But I would be curious to get end-user thoughts on this. If you were looking for a place, would you rather more interior space + Juliet balcony or less interior interior + conventional balcony? Are balconies a deal breaker?

    This is something that a lot of people in the industry debate. And it varies by city. In Toronto, conventional wisdom dictates that you need to provide balconies of any size, even if nobody ends up using them, other than to store a bike.

    In other cities – sometimes because of liability and sometimes because exterior balcony space gets counted as part of the building’s overall Gross Floor Area (GFA) – balconies can be a real rarity.

    What are your thoughts? Please leave a comment below. Thanks!

  • Ian Gillespie: It’s not about business

    The founder of Westbank, Ian Gillespie, recently sat down with Bloomberg TV to discuss the Toronto and Vancouver real estate markets; his Mirvish Village (Honest Ed’s) redevelopment project; affordable housing; and the markets he is and plans to be focused on (Vancouver, Toronto, Seattle, Tokyo, San Francisco).

    I like the part where he says that he’s really not that interested in business.

    If you can’t see the video below, click here.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/api/embed/iframe?id=6542ca85-017c-436e-aefc-25d8f4bb9b66

  • Motion Exposure

    Photographer Stephen Orlando is obsessed with capturing “motion through time and space.” What he does is use long single exposures and LED lights (attached to people and objects) in order to reveal paths of movement. The results are stunning.

    He has done this with various sports, including cross-country skiing, soccer, hockey, karate, and kayaking. His work is art + technology + sport. Check out his gallery here.

    Recently Stephen collaborated with Olympic kayaker Adam Van Koeverden and shot photos of him cruising along Lake Ontario with the Toronto skyline in the background. See above photo. The LED lights were attached to his paddle. The rest of those photos can be found here.

    What I like about these photos is that they’re created by visualizing – in a more permanent way – movement that is already latent within these sports. These are geometries that currently exist, we just can’t see them without Stephen’s help.

  • Dashilar Platform

    I am reading about the Dashilar Platform this evening. I am sure that some of you are already familiar with what’s happening in this Beijing neighborhood since the platform was founded in 2011. But I am just turning my attention to it.

    The Dashilar Platform is an approach to urban regeneration that grew out of a perceived failure, namely the redevelopment of Beijing’s historic Qianmen neighborhood in the lead up to the 2008 Summer Olympics.

    In this latter case, a top-down tabula rasa approach was adopted and the entire precinct was demolished to make way for what – I am told – is now a kitschy tourist area that has lost most, if not all, of its urban authenticity.

    The Dashilar approach runs counter to this and is trying to work bottom-up. Below is a description of their strategy from the Dashilar Platform website. (It feels like it was written using Google Translate.)

    Dashilar Platform is an open platform founded by Beijing Dashilar Investment Limited. As opposed to the conventional concept of blanket development, Dashilar Platform will utilize key nodes which act as catalysts for change in the area. Through research and design investigation, Dashilar Platform will promote certain archetypes, modules, and best-practice examples for both residents and outside investors. The aim is to encourage the community to move independently yet coherently towards the strong yet flexible goal of creating a sustainable community with increasing depth and diversity. All parties are welcome to join Dashilar Platform and participate in our [progressive] Dashilar Project.

    Some view this “urban acupuncture” strategy as simply a way to promote gentrification through small injections of culture and design. But gentrification, without displacement, strikes me as being the point given that the area was in decline. It was also probably one of the only sensible approaches given the fragmented ownership and illegal structures in the area.

    What stands out for me as I read up on the Dashilar Platform, is the acknowledgement that the market alone will not preserve all of which is thought to be currently desirable in the neighborhood.

    Here is an excerpt from a Medium article written by Masha Borak – a journalist and translator based in Beijing:

    Collaboration is not the only interesting thing about the [Dashilar] project. In the words of their representative, the platform wants to take on the role of a “urban curator" that would decide which kind of businesses could get cheaper rent so they wouldn’t be left to the market.

    Given the discussion that is going on in Toronto right now about 401 Richmond Street West – a non-profit and cultural hub in an area of the city seeing significant development pressures – this struck me as being particularly timely and relevant.

    Markets are not perfect.

    If any of you have any familiarity with the Dashilar Platform and what has been happening in this neighborhood, I would love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.

  • Supply down. Prices up. Unit sizes up.

    This morning BILD released its November new home data for the Greater Toronto Area. 

    The story is one we’ve been hearing for a while. Supply is trending downward. It’s becoming harder to build. And prices are up. The average new detached house in this region is now C$1,230,961 and the average new condo is now C$493,137 (~$601 psf). Overall, average pricing is up 20% for low-rise houses and up 10% for condos, compared to this time last year.

    One of the things that I find interesting about the data is how unit sizes have recently started trending upward on the high-rise (condo) side. Below is a chart from Altus Group that shows what I’m talking about. Look at the increase from the middle of 2015 to today. The average is now 820 sf, compared to what looks to be around 770 sf at its lowest point.

    image

    Now, there are a number of possible explanations for this. One is that boomers are starting to sell their houses and move into condos in larger numbers, and 500 sf just don’t do. The market is starting to cater to them. Another possible explanation is that low-rise pricing has become so out of reach for many people and families, that they are now looking to condos to fill that need.

    I see both scenarios playing out in new projects today. But this second scenario, in particular, is one that I’ve been thinking about for a few years now. It’s less obvious than the boomer play. But I think of it as the market maturing. I like seeing families living right in the city and I am sure we will see more of that in the future.

  • New York and Toronto population densities compared

    Today I came across this Reddit talking about how few census tracts there are in the United States with a population density greater than 150,000 people per square mile. 

    Basically, there’s a bunch in New York, one in San Francisco (Tenderloin), and one in Chicago that doesn’t really count because it’s an unusually small tract. Most other American cities don’t even come close.

    Looking at this New York Times mapping of the 2010 US census data, it turns out there are neighborhoods in NYC that go well beyond 150,000 people per square mile. Here’s one census tract (#154) at just over 200,000 ppsm:

    If you convert 200,764 into the globally accepted standard for measuring distances and areas, you get approximately 77,515 people per square kilometer. Pretty dense.

    As a comparison, I thought I would see how this number stacks up against what is commonly referred to as the densest neighborhood in Canada: St. James Town. 

    If you pull up that geographic code in the 2011 Canadian census data (#5350065.00 in case you’re that nerdy), you’ll see a map boundary that looks like this:

    And you’ll also find a 2011 population density of approximately 60,915 people per square kilometer. Also pretty dense – though the population did decline from 2006.

    Now obviously St. Jamestown is only one example. The rest of the city is, by and large, far less dense. But maybe when our 2016 census data gets released next year, we’ll find that we’ve become even denser. I suspect we will.

  • BARED: Howard Cohen, Context Development

    image

    Howard Cohen was initially trained as an architect. But throughout his schooling he gradually became more interested in urban design and city planning. So after graduating in the late 1960’s from the University of Manitoba with a degree in architecture, he took a job within the planning department at the City of Winnipeg. There he helped to author the “Downtown Winnipeg Plan” and quickly earned the reputation as one of the most creative people in the department.

    But after about a year and a half on the job, he decided that he wanted a change in scenery and so he quit and took off to Europe with his wife. Upon returning, with no money to his name, he managed to strum up two potential job opportunities; both of which were, thankfully, not in Winnipeg. One was an architecture job in New York City and the other was a planning position for a neighborhood on the east side of downtown Toronto known as Trefann Court.

    Since planning had become more interesting to him than architecture, Howard decided to fly to Toronto for the job interview. He vividly remembers staying at the Sutton Place Hotel – which is today being converted to condos – and walking down Bay Street to City Hall for his interview. He also remembers being so nervous that he had to smoke a joint prior to, in order to calm his nerves. The interview was with the chief planner, deputy chief planner, and with local residents from the area. They offered him the job on the spot.

    He accepted the position in 1970 and stayed at the City of Toronto until 1978. Howard was contemporaneous to figures such as John Sewell – the former mayor of Toronto who was also heavily involved in Trefann Court. Howard features prominently in John’s book: “How We Changed Toronto – The inside story of twelve creative, tumultuous years in civic life, 1969-1980.”

    Interestingly enough, during his time at the City, some of the land use policies that Howard was championing were actually quite contentious within the development community. For instance, Howard believed that Toronto’s downtown residential neighborhoods – neighborhoods such as Cabbagetown – should be preserved, and not razed and turned into replicas of St. James Town. This is an outcome that I am sure most of us today now appreciate.

    However, this is not to say that he was anti-development. Howard also firmly believed that high-density residential should be encouraged throughout the core of the city. We take this for granted now, but he remembers being called a zealot at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing because of his belief that people may actually want to live at the corner of Bay Street and Dundas Street. This was supposed to be a place for working and shopping, but definitely not living.

    Towards the end of his tenure at the City, Howard had become for all intents and purposes the chief planner of Toronto. He was the guy. However, without the actual title he was starting to get restless and decided to look elsewhere for opportunities.

    In 1972, the federal government formed a new Crown corporation known as the Harbourfront Corporation. This was after having expropriated over 100 acres of derelict industrial land along Toronto’s waterfront. The mandate was to revitalize the central waterfront, but after failing for 5 years to make anything meaningful happen, responsibility was ultimately turned over to local leadership.

    Shortly thereafter, Howard left the City and became the first head of Harbourfront Corporation. As coincidence would have it, he was offered the position on the same day that David Crombie – who was mayor at the time – called him to formally offer him the role of chief planner. However, Howard felt that there were more exciting challenges at Harbourfront and so that’s where he went.

    One of his first tasks at Harbourfront was to write the business plan that would set the course for the corporation and allow it to become self-sustaining. The model became about leveraging the value of the corporation’s land to not only create a thriving mixed-use community, but to also create a set of cultural institutions along the waterfront.

    The legacy of Howard’s work can be found in the Power Plant Contemporary Art Gallery, the Harbourfront Centre outdoor skating rink, the Queen’s Quay streetcar, as well as a number of other initiatives ranging from cultural programs to development projects. Some of his development deals included the affordable housing built at Bathurst Quay, the Admiral Hotel, and the Queen’s Quay Terminal developed by Olympia & York – a pioneering mixed-use development that to this day serves as one of the most important anchors on Toronto’s waterfront. It was also through these development projects that Howard would increasingly get into the mindset of a developer – something that would obviously serve him well later on.

    Despite being a financial success, Harbourfront Corporation was ultimately disbanded, partly due to controversy over some of the high-rise towers being developed along the waterfront. At this point, Howard was 44 years old and had spent his entire working career in the public sector. With the experience he had gained at the City and at Harbourfront Corporation, he decided that it was time to move over to the private sector and make some money. He went to work for a developer.

    Howard landed at Murray Goldman’s development company – the Goldman Group – and would spend 4 years there as President. He didn’t necessarily have all the finance and marketing chops, but he did have a lot of other relevant experience. Perhaps his best known project of this era is the Castle Hill townhouse complex at the foot of Casa Loma.

    After stepping down from the Goldman Group in the early 90’s, Howard then turned to consulting. This was a period of time when many in the industry were licking their wounds, but Howard managed to amass a diverse set of clients, including Innis College at the University of Toronto and the nascent Design Exchange. Initially hired as a consultant in 1992, Howard would later get asked to head up in the Design Exchange in 1994. He would spend 2 years in this role and raise over $7 million in donor money during one of the worst recessions in recent history.

    As his consulting business chugged along, Howard would later reconnect with an architect by the name of Lloyd Alter. Lloyd had done some work for the Goldman Group when Howard was there and they decided to join forces and create a larger consulting business known as Cohen & Alter. Business was good for the two of them. They were busy.

    They hadn’t really planned on getting into the development business, but then one day an agent came knocking with a small piece of land on Niagara Street. It was located in today’s King West neighborhood. Barbara Hall was mayor at the time and the city was starting to talk about new policies to open up “The Kings” to revitalization. “The Kings” being the two shoulders of downtown Toronto: King Street West and King Street East.

    Toronto was still in a recession at the time and nobody wanted the site. It was also fairly non-consensus to think that people would want to live in these gritty old parts of downtown. Only zealots believed this to be true. So the agent told Howard and Lloyd that they could option the site for $1 – basically tie it up for free.

    This was the birth of 20 Niagara.

    Since the recession had also left architects without work, they managed to get Peter Clewes (today of architectsAlliance) to defer his fees on the project. The deal was that when the project got off the ground, everyone would get paid. It was the ultimate in bootstrapping.

    Around this same time, Howard and Lloyd met Tom Schwartz, who would become a kind of mentor and advisor to the aspiring developers. Tom, who today is the President and CEO of CAPREIT, was already a successful developer through the founding of Intraurban Projects in 1976.

    Tom introduced Howard and Lloyd to a company called Equivest, which was owned by Gerry Schwartz (of Onex fame) and Stephen Gross. Equivest would become the financial backer for their fledgling project and set the stage for a go-forward funding model.

    Howard and Lloyd would also turn to a guy named Brad Lamb to sell the project. Brad had just started his own brokerage after working under Harry Stinson – a real estate broker turned developer who is perhaps best known for his cheesy late night infomercials. Brad had two employees at the time and would go on to personally sell 20 Niagara Street.

    20 Niagara launched in 1996.

    The project contained 30 condo units and was about 40,000 square feet. It took a year to sell the first 20 units – at some absurdly low price – and ultimately didn’t make any money for both Howard and Lloyd. Howard would spend the next two projects paying back the hangovers from 20 Niagara. It did, however, give birth to Context Development.

    Howard and Lloyd ended up parting ways after 20 Niagara, but the partnership of Howard Cohen, Stephen Gross, and Peter Clewes would go on to build some of the most design-forward and contextually sensitive projects in the city. The core philosophical beliefs were that housing of every varietal belongs downtown and that modern architecture has a place in the mass market. Again these principles may seem obvious today, but they weren’t as obvious in the late 90’s.

    Context Development would later develop adaptive reuse projects such as the Kensington Market Lofts and the Tip Top Lofts, award winning projects such as the Mozo, and wildly innovative projects such as the District Lofts (pictured above). This 14-storey “twin tower” condominium used Le Corbusier’s “skip-stop” system to create two-storey through units. Context would also go on to develop two buildings that I have personally called home – one of which I am sitting in right now as I write this post.

    For me, the story of Context has always had a particular resonance. As a trained architect who then entered the development business, Howard’s story showed me that I too could leave the world of architecture and do something positive for cities. He was a significant inspiration for me early on in my career when I was figuring out which path I wanted to take.

    Every developer brings their own background and sensibilities to their projects. And in the case of Howard’s projects, I know that Toronto is a better city because of it. Thank you, Howard.

    Image: District Lofts via Context

    ———————————————————

    This is the third post in my blog series called BARED (Becoming A Real Estate Developer). If you’d like to be featured in this series, send me an email or tweet me. The links are at the top of this page. Also, email subscribe to this blog to stay in the loop.

  • Monocle Travel Guide: Toronto

    image

    The latest Monocle Travel Guide is out (#17) and it is none other than Toronto. I haven’t picked up a copy yet, but I will. I’m always intrigued by how other people perceive this city because I obviously can’t be objective. Toronto is home.

    Here is the video that accompanied the launch of the guide. If you can’t see it below, click here.

    [vimeo 191633284 w=640 h=360]

    Thrilled to see husband-and-wife team John and Juli of Mjölk featured in the video. They have a wonderful shop (and home) in the Junction focused on high-end Scandinavian and Japanese design. They also have their own collections which are produced locally in the city.

    If you haven’t seen their home – Mjölk House by Studio Junction – you need to.

  • One becomes four

    The New York Times posted an interesting article today talking about how roommates in the city are dividing and conquering expensive rentals using temporary walls. This is obviously not a new practice. But it’s a good case study in what people will do in order to make living in a specific location affordable – in this case, Manhattan.

    The first example is a one bedroom apartment that was converted to a 4-person apartment. Here is the floor plan (from the New York Times):

    image

    The living/dining room was divided up using a T-shaped partition wall – which is required to stop 2 feet shy of the ceiling – to create two additional bedrooms. The original bedroom is then shared via two twin beds. Et voilà. Now you have an apartment where the $3,750 per month rent becomes less than $1,000 per person.

    Probably the most annoying thing about this setup would be the lack of acoustic privacy. Since the partition walls don’t go all the way up to the ceiling (photo here), you’d obviously hear everything. One person in the article described it as living in the same room as all of your roommates, but not being able to see anyone.

    Of course, there’s also a space consideration:

    Mr. Meyer, 23, has the smallest room by far. “It kind of feels like you’re living in Harry Potter’s cupboard,” said Mr. Meyer, who is in his freshman year at Columbia after serving for three years in the Israel Defense Forces.

    The roommates, three of whom grew up together in Toronto, don’t mind the close quarters or the lack of privacy. “It’s definitely not for everyone,” Mr. Meyer said. “When you live with your best friends, it couldn’t be better. We hardly spend time in our rooms.”

    I saw a lot of this here in Toronto while I was in undergrad. 55 Charles Street West was always a great candidate for these sorts of hacks because the units are large and because the building is filled with solariums. Inevitably, they became additional bedrooms. 

    (Sidebar: My understanding is that there was a period of time in Toronto where solariums were excluded from gross floor area calculations. So developers used to always put them in to capture more area. That’s why buildings of a certain vintage always seem to have them.)

    In any event, the above certainly makes the case for more micro units and co-living arranagements. Many people seem willing to deal with a variety of living situations in order to live where they want to live. Urban affordability is certainly a global concern.

  • What is your city’s flag?

    How often do you see it around town? 

    Here in Toronto, I can’t say that I see ours all that often outside of city hall. Am I missing it? Here’s what it looks like:

    image

    In other cities, such as Chicago, the city flag seems to be far more ubiquitous. Here’s what Chicago’s looks like:

    image

    In the case of Toronto’s flag, the two white bands are meant to represent the architecture of Toronto City Hall. The maple leaf is the Council Chamber at the bottom. And there is some suggestion of a letter “T” for Toronto. Wikipedia says the “T” is supposed to be found in the blue space between and above the two towers of city hall, but I’ve always seen the two white bands as being the “T.”

    In the case of Chicago’s flag, the blue bands represent the lake and river (I like that) and the four six-sided stars represent significant events in the history of the city (positioned between the two bodies of water to mimic its actual geography).

    Roman Mars of 99% Invisible has a great podcast and TED talk on this topic. (The study of flags is known as vexillology.) In both instances, he outlines what he believes to be the 5 rules of great flag design. They are:

    1. Keep it simple
    2. Use meaningful symbolism
    3. Use 2-3 basic colors
    4. No lettering or seals
    5. Be distinctive

    Toronto’s flag generally conforms to these rules. But there’s something about the positioning of the maple leaf that makes the flag feel a bit arbitrary to me. I want to rationalize it.

    In any event, I think it could be really interesting if all of us shared our city’s flag in the comment section below and made a comment about how ubiquitous it is within the urban landscape.

    Roman makes the argument that a great flag gives people something to rally behind. And with cities only becoming more important on the global stage, there’s something to be said about having a well-designed flag today.

    I wonder if there will be a correlation between good flag design and ubiquity. My guess: probably.