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: urbanism

  • The roaring twenties

    We’ve all heard stories or know people who have made the decision to leave the city during this pandemic, either temporarily or permanently. Some young people have moved home until things settle down and some people have sold their real estate and bought something outside of the city.

    I don’t know know what the exact numbers are, but you can see this trend being reflected today in downtown rental rates and other indicators. This is happening in many cities around the world.

    But here’s what I think about when I hear these stories:

    1) Are these people assuming that we will never go back to offices and that WFH is our new reality? In this case, the thinking is simple. The world has changed. I need a proper Zoom room and a home gym.

    2) Did these people never really like urban living or have they simply outgrown the city? Pre-pandemic, family formation was still a major pull away from downtowns for many. In this case, a move was going to happen regardless.

    3) Or are these people taking a short-term view of the world and forgetting/ignoring that our global cities are going to rebound and that 2 hour commutes really suck? (Sitting in front of Zoom all day is also no way to live in my opinion.)

    There are both positives and negatives to urban living. There are forces that make people want to centralize and there are forces that make people want to decentralize. And the reality is that many of the benefits and perks of living in a city are temporarily turned off right now.

    Things are not fun right now, but this isn’t going to last. I’m looking forward to the roaring twenties.

  • Only about a quarter of Canadians are living the 15-minute city

    This is an excellent article by Alex Bozikovic, Joe Castaldo and Danielle Webb about the 15-minute city. In it, they do a block-by-block analysis of how many Canadians actually live in what they are calling an “amenity dense” neighborhood.

    Their definition of amenity dense:

    • Grocery store, pharmacy, and public transit stop within one kilometer
    • Childcare facility, primary school, and a library within 1.5 kilometers
    • Healthcare facility within three kilometers
    • Place of employment within 10 kilometers

    Once you apply this filter to Canadian cities, it turns out that only about 23.3% of city dwellers live in this kind of amenity dense neighborhood. It’s really only our three largest cities. For the most part, we have built environments that want you to have a car.

    When it comes Toronto, and also Montreal, it is a tale of two almost equally divided cities. If you live in a central neighborhood, you’re probably dense with amenities. But in the inner suburbs, it becomes pretty spotty. And though it can be done, this is not an easy change.

    The full article has many more of these city maps and so I would encourage you to check it out. It’s a great piece of journalism.

    Photo by Chloe Evans on Unsplash

  • Vancouver is probably getting transport pricing

    Earlier this month, Vancouver City Council approved a plan that will have staff developing a “transport pricing” strategy for the city’s core. (Transport pricing is just another term for road pricing or congestion pricing.) The plan is for staff to go away and work on this and then report back to Council with a pricing strategy sometime in 2022. At that point Council will look to approve the plan and it will all get implemented by 2025. Or at least that’s the plan. I remain somewhat skeptical because Vancouver certainly isn’t the first Canadian city to look at pricing its roads and congestion. Toronto has tried and failed. And so if Vancouver does end up doing this, they’ll likely be the first city in the country.

    So why are they doing this, or least trying to do this? Well, if you’re a regular reader of this blog you’ll know that I’ve been a supporter of road pricing for many years. Lots of old posts over here. But in the case of Vancouver, their stated goals are really as follows: 1) They want to reduce congestion and encourage people to use other forms of mobility; 2) they want to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030; and 3) they want another revenue stream that can be used to fund things like transit and active transport. Put differently, it’s about pricing/taxing the things that we want less of and then using that money to pay for the things we want more of.

    Some of you might be wondering whether this is a good idea at a time when the centralizing pull of cities is being called into question. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that Vancouver thinks it needs at least five years to implement its transport pricing. We’ll be living through the roaring twenties by then. I am also a firm believer that cities are going to snap back significantly faster than most people think.

  • Restaurants are a central pillar of superstar cities

    How important are urban restaurants? This recent article by Eduardo Porter makes the argument that they are a “central pillar of superstar cities.” They are the social spaces that draw young and smart people to cities (see above) and that fuel our creative economy.

    According to Eduardo, in the 1970s, urban consumers in US cities typically devoted about 28% of their overall food budget to dining out. As of 2019, restaurants, bars, food trucks, and other dining establishments consumed about 47% of this budget for people living in cities with a population greater than 2.5 million.

    By comparison, people who resided outside of an urban area in 2019, spent only about 38% of their food budget on eating out. Still, these are substantial numbers. A big part of the food and drink that we consume is, at least during normal times, happening outside of where we live.

    Right now is certainly not the finest hour for cities. Urban amenities (like restaurants) and social networks are part of what make living in a city so enjoyable. And these two things have been greatly (and rightly) reduced. But I don’t for a second doubt the overall resiliency of our cities.

    This isn’t their first crisis and, unfortunately, it won’t be their last.

    Image: New York Times

  • A completely car-free neighborhood in Arizona

    The New York Times recently published this interesting piece about Culdesac and the completely car-free community that they are building just east of Phoenix in Tempe, Arizona (a place that is not generally known for its walkability). Culdesac calls itself the first “post-car real estate developer in the United States.” And so their Culdesac Tempe project has been designed to house 1,000 residents and exactly 0 cars.

    When the first phase is completed next year, residents will be restricted from having a car within the community and they’ll also be restricted from parking on any nearby streets. (This second stipulation was done to assuage concerns that a zero parking community would create a spillover effect in the surrounding area.) Instead, residents of Culdesac Tempe will rely on their local amenities, as well as on transit (it’s on a light rail line), biking, ride-sharing, and other forms of urban mobility.

    While this may seem kind of crazy for sprawling Arizona, the company’s thesis is both clear and clever. The future of American cities needs to be the kind of walkable urbanism that you find in places like the northeast. But at the same time, the fastest growing cities in the United States are generally in the Sun Belt. What they are doing is building walkable urbanism in the places where people clearly want to live.

  • Were the Victorians better city builders?

    A team of researchers at UCL recently surveyed 2,500 households across the UK to see how the design of their homes and neighborhoods has impacted their experience during lockdown (May to June 2020).

    Perhaps most notably, the report, called Home Comforts, found that people living in housing built in the last 10 years were more likely to feel uncomfortable during lockdown (1 in 5), compared to those living in homes built before 1919 (1 in 7).

    On top of this, people living in Victorian era housing were more likely to say that their neighborhoods were meeting their everyday needs, which seems to translate into convenient access to basic amenities (5 to 10 minute walk).

    So what does this tell us?

    That people want more ornament and clearly defined Zoom-friendly rooms? That the Victorians were better at city and community building? Or maybe that Londoners living in low-rise pre-1919 housing are generally well-established and have the ability to afford more conveniences? It’s likely a bunch of different things.

    There’s no denying that the way we build our homes and our neighborhoods has, for better or for worse, changed over the last 100 years. But let’s not forget that it’s easy to romanticize the past and the things we used to do. I’m sure it wasn’t puppy dogs and ice cream for all of the Victorians.

  • The resilient city and road pricing

    Joe Berridge’s recent opinion piece in the Globe and Mail is a good reminder — in the face of a whole lot of uncertainty — about the resiliency of our cities.

    Those previous decades saw a surge of people and jobs locating downtown, with consequent escalation in rents and prices of offices and housing. Why? Partly demographic, as the well-educated children of the baby boom reached adulthood, and partly lifestyle and work style. Young people go to big cities not just to work and live, but for sex, style, money and power. For ambition and anonymity. And for risk. All in the petri dish of downtown density. These drives have always been as powerful as their subsequent search for suburban security and community.

    The structure of the modern megalopolis is not an accident – the dramatic rise of tech employment, two-earner families, the decline of manufacturing, the later date of marriage, smaller households, lifestyle consumerism, teamwork cultures, serial re-education and training – none of these societal trends looks to be diminished by COVID-19. All of them seem to prefer high-density, high-interaction environments.

    For those of us in Toronto, it’s also important to remember just how quickly this city region was growing pre-COVID-19. That is unlikely to change on the other side of this.

    But Berridge does also point out some of the potential fallouts from this pandemic. The economics of urban transit, for example, could remain a problem for quite some time. This will strain public purses. (Car usage rebounded quickly, but transit ridership has not.)

    We are also likely to see increased traffic congestion as a result of people eschewing transit (and probably a bunch of other factors). Like Berridge, I am a supporter of road/congestion pricing, and have been writing about that on this blog for many years.

    The best things to tax/price are things that are generally viewed as bad and where demand is largely inelastic. That is, even if you increase the price, many or most people will probably still do it anyway. Think of things like smoking.

    Up until now, Toronto hasn’t had the moxie to make difficult (political) decisions like this one. Perhaps this pandemic will leave us no other choice.

  • Tech and New York City

    Tech:NYC has just launched a new podcast called Talk:NYC. The first episode is with venture capitalist and blogger Fred Wilson. (Though, it should be noted that Fred and his wife, Joanne, are also involved in the real estate development space.) In this episode, Julie Samuels and Fred Wilson talk about why he came to New York, how to manage through a downturn, where working spaces are going, and why the magic of New York is still there — among a bunch of other things. Click here if you can’t see the embedded podcast below.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-212806065/talknycep01fredwilson

  • New York City makes outdoor dining permanent

    New York City just made its “Open Restaurants” program permanent. Originally set to expire at the end of the October, the al fresco dining program — which allows restaurants to use sidewalks and curb lanes adjacent to their business — is now being thought of as something that will permanently reshape public space in the city.

    Along with this announcement, the City also provided clarity on how heating and enclosures may be used throughout the winter months. Electrical heaters can be used anywhere. But propane heaters can only be used on sidewalks and you’ll need to get a permit from the fire department. Prior to this announcement, there was an outright ban on propane heaters.

    Tents and other enclosures are now permitted, but at least 50% of the side walls needs to remain open for ventilation. Otherwise it gets classified as indoor dining and those rules would then apply. However, fully enclosed structures, such as cool looking Instagrammable domes, are allowed for individual parties provided there’s “adequate ventilation.” Whatever that means.

    This is yet another example of how COVID-19 is forcing us to reconsider the way we think about and use public space within our cities — perhaps forever. And in this particular case, it’ll be interesting to see to what extent cities embrace dining outside in the winter. Some of us already do it when we, for example, après ski. Could the same thing work in our cities?

    Photo by Aleks Marinkovic on Unsplash

  • Housing supply in Tokyo

    It has been well documented that Tokyo tends to build a lot of housing. And the argument goes that this has helped to maintain a certain level of housing affordability. The city is constantly building and rebuilding. It also has different views about housing. Now, we could, of course, debate how much of its relative affordability is a direct result of supply but, regardless, there seems to be a lot of it. In 2014, the city of Tokyo saw 142,417 housing starts, according to this recent FT article. This is compared to ~5,000 units across the Bay Area (2015 data), 83,657 units for the state of California, and 137,010 units for all of England.

    If you’re wondering how Toronto is doing, here are the latest numbers: