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: urban land institute

  • Micro-housing experiment in San Diego’s Little Italy

    San Diego-based Jonathan Segal is a unique kind of builder in that his firm doesn’t have any clients. They act as both the architect and developer for all of their projects. This gives them a lot of control over the building process, but also more freedom to experiment.

    ULI recently interviewed Segal about his micro-housing project on 320 West Cedar Street in San Diego’s Little Italy (called The Continental). And I think it’s a pretty interesting case study for us to discuss here on the blog.

    It’s a 5,000 sf corner site, and Segal developed it with 42 micro units (5 of which are priced at 65% of AMR), two retail spaces at grade, and a separate “single-family townhouse” for his son that sits on top of the retail space at the corner.

    The idea was to create relatively affordable “workforce” housing, which is why there’s also minimal parking. The 37 market-rate units are currently priced between $1,595 and $1,995 per month, and the affordable ones are about $900 per month.

    Segal is forthright in the interview in saying that leasing velocity was slow following completion in December 2019. It was hard to rent these kinds of units in San Diego without any parking. But he viewed the project as an experiment and eventually he did find product-market fit.

    The mix of housing types here is also noteworthy. Presumably his son could have just gone out and built a more typical grade-related home. But why do that when you can build on top of an urban retail space and add 42 other homes to the lot?

  • In support of rubber chicken

    This morning I attended ULI Toronto’s annual “Meet the Chief Planners” event. (Some of my random tweets from the morning can be found here.) Now in its 7th year, it is a great event where all of the chief city planners from around the Greater Golden Horseshoe area come together with professionals from the land use community to network and discuss the future of our cities.

    Normally it happens in the evening over dinner and drinks, which is how I attended last year right before our first lockdown (we were at the elbow bump and foot tap stage of the pandemic). But this year it was of course online.

    First, I would like to say thank you to Multiplex Construction Canada (our partner on Junction House) for the invite. And secondly, I would like to say kudos to Richard Joy and the rest of ULI Toronto for coordinating such a great event with over 400 virtual attendees.

    However, the main point that I would like to make today is that I don’t know how anyone can attend a virtual conference and believe that this is some sort of “new norm.” I don’t know about all of you, but I am ready to go back to rubber chicken dinners and too many glasses of affordably priced wine — pronto.

    I say this not to criticize any of the groups that are working hard today to organize virtual events. I am a big fan of ULI and the work that they do. I would encourage all of you involved in the built environment to join immediately if you’re not already members.

    Instead, I say this as yet another piece of evidence for why I won’t stop writing and talking about the resilience of our cities. Video calls are such an awful substitute for sitting around a table with people and breaking bread. It’s not even close.

    And so as I sat at my home office desk this morning, listening to the conference and eating McDonald’s hotcakes (because, hey, Uber Eats and because, hey, it’s Friday), I couldn’t help but be reminded of how bullish I am on cities and city life. This, I thought to myself, is why cities are such a centralizing force.

    Ultimately, it is also why groups like the Urban Land Institute are so important. It is because our cities matter a great deal and because they’re not going anywhere. If you aren’t sick of me talking about the resilience of cities, you can also find me in this recent RENX article called, “Toronto residential tower boom shows no signs of slowing.”

  • The resilient story of Toronto’s tall towers

    The Urban Land Institute Toronto is hosting an event and panel discussion on April 8, 2021 about the future of high-rises in our cities. Here’s the blurb:

    Against the backdrop of the pandemic and its toll, what is the future of high-rises in our cities? What role do tall towers now play in shaping Toronto’s identity? While the pandemic has accelerated existing large trends, residential tall towers are proving the durability of a quality urban centre and hyper-urban lifestyles in Toronto and around the world.

    An introduction will be provided by James Parakh (author, Fellow of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and Urban Design Manager for the Toronto & East York District) and then a discussion will be moderated by Robyn Player (Director, BTY).

    The discussion will be focused on what ULI is calling three of Toronto’s most exciting tower projects under development: Pinnacle One Yonge, One Delisle, and 11 Yorkville.

    I will be on the panel (talking One Delisle) alongside Lee Koutsaris (VP, Sales and Marketing, Metropia) and Anson Kwok (VP, Sales and Marketing, Pinnacle International).

    If you’d like to register, you can do that over here. It should be a great/timely conversation.

  • Where developers won’t build even with $0 land

    Building on yesterday’s post about inclusionary zoning, below is a telling diagram from the Urban Land Institute showing which areas of Portland can support new development and which areas cannot. To create this map, ULI looked at achievable rents in each US census block to determine, quite simply, where rents will cover the cost of new development (all types of construction).

    However, in their models they are also assuming a land value of $0. And typically people want you to pay them money when you buy their land. So in all likelihood, this map is overstating the amount of blue — that being land where new development is feasible.

    But it does tell you something about developer margins. A lot of people seem to assume that the margins on new developments are so great that things like inclusionary zoning can simply be “absorbed” without impacting overall feasibility. The reality is that there are large swaths in most cities where development is never going to happen even if you were to start handing out free land.

    This map is also helpful at illustrating some of the impacts of IZ. If you assume that rents are the highest in the center of the city and that they fall off as you move outward, then the outer edge of the above blue area is going to be where development is only marginally feasible. And so any new cost imposed on development would naturally start to uniformly eat away at the blue feasible area — that is, until rents rise enough to offset it.

    Of course, this is a simplified mapping. Land usually costs money. Land values might also be highest in the center and fall off as you move outward, or there could be pockets of high-cost land. There may be more price elasticity in certain sub-markets compared to others. So the impacts of a new development cost may not play out as neatly as I outlined above.

    Regardless, there will be impacts, which is why I find this map telling even if it isn’t fully accurate or up to date. Maybe some of you will as well.

  • City-states and superstar cities

    During the recent election here in Toronto, mayoral candidate Jennifer Keesmaat raised the idea of this city region, maybe, becoming its own province. It wasn’t the first time this idea has been floated, but it once again didn’t stick.

    Earlier this week, Richard Florida spoke at the Urban Land Institute’s Toronto symposium and he brought up a similar issue: Toronto is a ‘city state’ and needs to start acting like it. Here is an excerpt from a recent Star article about his talk:

    He also noted that in terms of total economic output, the GTA [Greater Toronto Area] — he included the Golden Horseshoe — is responsible for about “$700 billion” (U.S) in economic output.

    “Which means our … region is equivalent to that of Sweden. So we are a city state, a mega region.”

    He later added: “we are a powerful global city with lots of assets to build on,” he said.

    But he went on to say that despite all of these successes there’s a “sense that something is amiss, something is wrong.”

    I have long supported the notion that city regions need to see and think of themselves as one united and contiguous economic landscape. In our case, it is not about, for instance, Hamilton vs. Toronto. This is about our entire region vs. New York or Singapore (a city-state) or the Pearl River Delta megalopolis.

    The headlines coming out of Amazon’s recent announcement are clear: In Superstar Cities, the Rich Get Richer, and They Get Amazon. This is winner-take-all urbanism where you need to be a “superstar” in order to compete. 

  • World’s most diverse city-region

    For those of you who aren’t going to be in Toronto next week, you can stop reading now and check back tomorrow. For the rest of you, next week is The Future Cities Canada Summit, which will be taking place from November 7 – 9. Full schedule, here.

    Day 1 equals the Urban Land Institute Symposium 2018, which is all about Toronto urbanism. The tagline is: “Explore the urban frontiers of North America’s fastest growing, and the world’s most diverse city-region.” 

    A big part of day 1 will be bus tours around the city. And one of those tours is going to be focused on Toronto’s laneways. I am a speaker on that tour and the bus will be stopping at Junction House to talk about the laneway houses that we plan to release as part of the project.

    But there’s much more to this summit than just laneway housing.

  • What to do about Hong Kong’s land supply problem?

    My friend Jeremiah shared this ULI article with me this morning, which talks about Hong Kong’s land supply problem. The interesting thing about this problem is that only 9.3 square miles of the city’s land (out of ~424 square miles) is actually developed (and about 60% of the region’s area is water). The rest has been preserved for parks, farmland, and so on. And that is certainly a remarkable characteristic of Hong Kong. It doesn’t take very long to escape its hyper-urbanism and be in the countryside.

    Preserving greenspace is of course vital. But at what point do population and growth pressures justify the unlocking of some of that land for development? This is the question that Hong Kong appears to be asking itself. At the same time, it is looking at developing other islands (such as Lantau, which I understand is a pretty lush place); reclaiming (i.e. creating) additional land; and positioning the city as part of a planned “Greater Bay Area.” 

    If it were up to you, how would you suggest that Hong Kong deal with these pressures? The city is already fairly adept at building up.

    Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

  • ULI Hines Student Competition comes to Toronto

    I was speaking with a Penn (my alma mater) student this evening about career options in development and he mentioned to me that he recently participated in the 2018 ULI Hines Student Competition. He also mentioned that this year’s “study site” is in Toronto. (It’s the BMW Toronto dealership between the West Don Lands and East Harbor.)

    For those of you unfamiliar with the ULI Hines Competition, it’s an annual student competition (now in its 16th year) that encourages collaboration among “future real estate developers and the many allied professions, such as architecture, landscape architecture, historic preservation, engineering, finance, and others.” 

    Each year there is a real life study site and multi-disciplinary teams compete for $50,000. I participated in my 2nd year of graduate architecture school and we received honorable mention. So no $50,000, sadly. But it was a valuable experience and I would recommend it to any student who plans to be involved in the built environment after graduation.

    I am looking forward to seeing what the finalists come up with for this site. I think that the study site being in Toronto – and in particular this location – speaks to the momentum that has developed in this part of the city as a result of the West Don Lands, East Harbor, Sidewalk Toronto, and the various planned infrastructure investments. 

    Here is a copy of this year’s briefing materials.
    Good luck to all of the teams that participated.

  • Case study: 9-unit infill rental development in DC

    This is an interesting ULI case study about a 9-unit infill rental development in Washington, DC called Oslo (click here if you can’t see the video below):

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FfT6UREuc?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

    The units are a mix of 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom apartments. The target market is recent graduates and millennials who might otherwise be sharing (”group living”) in a townhouse or single-family home to save on rent.

    Another notable aspect of this project is the fact that the previous building was a legal non-conforming 9-unit apartment building. In other words, the current zoning wouldn’t allow it today. So to preserve their zoning status, they had to figure out a clever workaround during construction.

    A project exactly like this – where you’re replacing an existing apartment building – probably wouldn’t be possible in Toronto because of our rental housing demolition and conversion bylaw. 

    But I wanted to share it because I am sure that many of you, including those outside of this city, will appreciate it as a good example of low-rise infill development.

  • Case Study: Chophouse Row, Seattle

    The Urban Land Institute recently published an interesting case study for a project in Seattle called Chophouse Row. 

    It is the last phase in a series of projects that the developer, Liz Dunn, has been involved with in the neighborhood over the last 16 years.

    This particular project has 25,317 sf of office, 6,379 sf of retail, and 4,795 sf of residential (3 penthouses). It also incorporates a heritage building. Good example of fine-grained urban infill.

    Here is the video (click here if you can’t see it below):

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PmAMsWEv98?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

    On a related note, ULI’s 2017 Toronto Symposium is coming up later this month (April 24 – 25, 2017). Here is the program. 80+ speakers. If you’d like to register, you can do that there.