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: urbanism

  • Kanju (and the future of cities)

    There is so much interest in cities right now and I think that is absolutely wonderful. Earlier today my friend Derek shared a video with me on Twitter called, The Future of Cities. It’s by YouTuber Oscar Boyson, who I recognize from some of Casey Neistat’s videos, but whose own videos I have never watched before.

    I highly recommend you watch this video. It’s just over 18 minutes. If you can’t see the video below, click here.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOOWk5yCMMs?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

    It’s well-executed, a joy to watch, and packed full of information and ideas. There are soundbites from lots of well known urbanists (both living and dead). And I also love how Oscar crowdsourced ideas and content from cities all around the world.

    The title of this blog post will make sense once you’ve watched the video.

  • So how’s Uber doing?

    A travel expense management company called Certify recently analyzed over 10 million ground transportation receipts across North America for the 3-month period ending last September (2016). 

    And what they found was that, for the first time ever, Uber and Lyft exceeded traditional taxis and rental cars when it came to business expenses. Uber was at 48% and Lyft was at 4%. So together, these two platforms have more than half of this particular market.

    If you compare this to Certify’s data from the same quarter last year, “ride-hailing services” previously accounted for 34% of receipts, whereas taxis and rental cars were at 22% and 44%, respectively. So Uber is up in a big way.

    This may not be surprising for a lot of you, but I thought it would be valuable to check-in on what the numbers say. 

    I’m hit with two thoughts. Firstly, it’s not a question of mobile apps superseding traditional taxis; it’s a question of one company taking over. And secondly, people seem to be favoring Uber over driving themselves around. I know I’ve been heading in that direction.

    Those are two powerful trends.

  • 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.

  • Laneway suites consultation

    I just got home from the Citywide Laneway Suites Consultation meeting that was held this evening at the Evergreen Brick Works here in Toronto. (I guess I do find time to go to public meetings.) 

    For those of you who are interested in laneway housing, or an equivalent housing typology, here are a couple of takeaways from the event.

    There’s political support. Councillor McMahon and Councillor Bailao were there voicing their support for laneway suites. Both see it as an opportunity to diversify the housing stock and increase the supply of affordable ground-related housing in the city.

    Laneway suites (in the context of this current groundswell) are being thought of as secondary suites – exactly like basement suites. This is a smart approach that gets around a number of the hurdles that laneway houses currently face in the city.

    Because of this, the idea is that both the main house and the laneway house will remain under the same ownership. No property severances. No selling off the back lot.

    Other than this, nothing was really put forward in the way of guidelines. The whole point of these public meetings is to solicit community feedback and then roll that into a set of laneway suite design guidelines that will allow these homes to be built “as of right.”

    Obviously there are a number of questions around building height; minimum lot size; window orientation (laneway and/or backyard?); maximum number of secondary suites on a property (would both a basement and a laneway suite be allowed?); and so on.

    The next step is a report that will get submitted to the city in the new year. So if you haven’t already, please complete this Lanescape survey. We’ll see where all of this goes, but right now you can certainly feel the momentum.

    I also don’t think this is a Toronto-specific topic. Many other cities have adopted similar policies and I am certain that many more will do the same in the future. 

  • 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.

  • Miami nice

    Art Basel Miami Beach is going on right now so a few of us were talking about it in the office this week. If I had the time, I would have loved to go back this year.

    I think it’s great how Miami (Beach) seems to be infusing art, design, and culture into seemingly everything it does.

    Here is a really well done video tour of Miami’s Faena District (via Wallpaper*). It’s definitely worth a watch. Screenshot below.

    If you don’t know the story behind Alan Faena, you should also read up. He’s an Argentinian fashion designer turned real estate developer.

  • Below-grade urbanism

    I came across an interesting discussion on Twitter last night about tunnels, bridges, elevated walkways, and Toronto’s elaborate (mostly) underground shopping complex known as the PATH. It’s the largest of its kind in the world.

    Here’s the thing: the idea of pulling people off the street and into an underground shopping mall, runs counter to what many urbanists believe is the optimal outcome.

    Below is a footnote I found in a 2006 research paper by Pierre

    Bélanger called, Underground landscape: The urbanism and infrastructure of Toronto’s downtown pedestrian network.

    “The reluctance of urban designers and academics to engage the
    dynamics of the underground is stunning. For almost 50 years, urban
    designers, landscape architects and planners have longed for car-free
    pedestrian environments that are safe, secure and accessible. From a
    planning perspective, the Toronto underground may be the ultimate form
    of attrition of the automobile on the urban landscape: there are no parking
    lots, no asphalt, and no congestion. With its mass-transit accessibility, it is
    an ideal pedestrian network. This reluctance may in part be attributable to
    a prevailing attitude that privately-controlled underground shopping is
    undesirable, at best dismissible. As self-contained environments, they are
    perceived as lying outside the so-called public domain and that they kill off
    street life. As a more legitimate form of collective space, street-level
    activity located within municipal right-of-ways therefore receives much
    more advocacy.”

    Of course, there is truth to the notion that activity gets concentrated below grade. When people visit Toronto’s Financial District for the first time, they’ll often ask: Where is the retail? And then you have to explain that it’s all underground and that we live like mole people from 9-5.

    But despite this reluctance on the part of urbanists, people do seem to like it. When you’re marketing a building in the CBD, being PATH-connected is a feature, not a bug. I always joke that in the summer, I hate the PATH. But in the winter, I love it. 

    There’s also a feeling of hyper-connectivity during business hours in the PATH – particularly at lunch. You have everyone leaving their desks, descending from their towers, and mixing all about in a dense pedestrian-only network. It’s unusual not to run into someone you know.

    So love it or hate it, perhaps we should appreciate it for what it is: thriving city life.

  • Local rail-driven agglomeration economies

    This morning I came across the below graph in a Medium article by Eric Jaffe of Sidewalk Labs. It is taken from a research paper by Elisabeth Ruth Perlman called, Dense Enough To Be Brilliant: Patents, Urbanization, and Transportation in Nineteenth Century America.

    What this chart shows is patents issued – a proxy for innovation – in all U.S. counties between 1790 and 1900. This data is then compared against access to transport, such as rail. The discovery is a statistically significant relationship between innovation (patents issued) and rail (transport) access.

    The spike in the 1850s (shown above) is as a result of increased rail access.

    But Perlman takes it a step further and asks: what is causing this spike in innovation? Is it because inventors and creators started responding to the larger market now accessible to them because of rail connectivity? Or did transportation somehow improve productivity and the flow of information?

    To answer this question, she dug into the patents themselves (over 700,000 of them) to try and identify how ideas and key words were spreading. What she found is that rail access alone doesn’t encourage innovation. References to new technologies did not increase.

    What mattered was what happened locally. Transportation improvements promoted urbanization and density during her study period, and that’s what drove innovation. Connectivity created agglomeration economies at the local level.

    Obviously a lot has changed since the 19th century. But whether it’s rail connectivity or internet connectivity, have the rules really changed? Place still matters. What happens locally still matters. Perhaps even more. 

    This is an important lesson to consider as we build our cities and invest in transportation. Rail alone isn’t enough. What matters more is what we build around it. Are we dense enough to be brilliant?

  • Thoughts on public meetings

    A few weeks ago I received a community meeting notice in the mail for a new development happening in my neighborhood. I am excited about the project and so I immediately put it in my calendar and told myself: “I’m going to this.”

    But then a work commitment came up and I skipped the event. I always do this. I put these public meetings in my calendar with every intention of going, but then as soon as something else comes up, it gets bumped. So in the end, my voice will not be heard.

    I say this not because I think my singular voice is all that important, but because I suspect I’m not alone when it comes to these community meetings. I live and breathe city building and if I struggle to attend these things, what does that mean for the average resident?

    As soon as you create friction – such as having to go somewhere, physically – you’re going to lose a large segment of people. This also means that only those who are highly motivated will attend.

    I saw this phenomenon play out in my condo building. At our first annual general meeting – when the building still had a bunch of deficiencies and the elevators were spotty – we had a sold out and lively crowd. 

    But as soon as things started humming along in year two (we are now a well-oiled machine), we then struggled to reach quorum. Why show up unless you’ve got a bone to pick, right?

    What was the last public meeting that you attended in your city?

  • High resolution population maps

    image

    Facebook, as part of their internet.org initiative, is working on bringing internet access to people in rural areas all across the world. For obvious socioeconomic reasons, this is an important initiative. From a business standpoint, it also grows the base of potential Facebook users at a time where that top line number is starting to plateau.

    In order to understand how people are settling and aggregating throughout the world, Facebook has been using high-resolution population maps and then creating models to drill down and analyze individual buildings. 

    This is interesting because: how else could you track informal settlements? So far this seems to be the most effective method. In fact, in architecture school I worked on a project in Dhaka, Bangladesh and I remember relying heavily on aerial photography because I simply couldn’t find the data I was looking for.

    Here’s an excerpt from a recent World Bank post. They, along with Columbia University, are collaborating with Facebook.

    Facebook’s computer vision approach is a very fast method to produce spatially-explicit country-wide population estimates. Using their method, Facebook successfully generated at-scale, high-resolution insights on the distribution of buildings, unmatched by any other remote sensing effort to date. These maps demonstrate the value of artificial intelligence for filling data gaps and creating new datasets, and they could provide a promising complement to household surveys and censuses.

    And here’s an excerpt from a recent Facebook post on the same topic:

    From this preliminary analysis, we’ve determined that slightly less than 50% of the population lives in cities. However, 99% of the population lives within 63 km of the nearest city. Hence, if we are able to develop communication technologies that can bridge 63 km with sufficiently high data rates, we should be able to connect 99% of the population in these 23 countries. [”These 23 countries” represents about 1/3 of the world’s population.]

    I would imagine that this type of model works better in sparsely populated / low-rise areas. Still, I am very interested in thinking about ways in which our current survey and census methods could be improved. Here in Canada we conduct our national census every 5 years. In today’s world that feels like eons. One day, I am sure, it will be real-time.

    Image: World Bank