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.
According to Bloomberg, there are a number of reasons for this: low housing supply, a constrained geography, a key interest rate that is less than half of the ECB’s, and Google. Google is one of the largest employers in the city, with more than 5,000 employees. And supposedly the starting salaries for a software developer there can reach 200,000 Swiss francs (nearly CA$300,000).
I also just learned that the minimum wage in Switzerland is 23.90 Swiss francs per hour. Based on 160 hours per month, that’s 3,824 francs per month or 45,888 francs per year. In Canadian dollars, that’s over $68,000 per year. Pretty healthy. Although, as we can see here, Zurich is also expensive.
A Pigovian tax is a tax on market activities that produce some kind of negative externality for society. The basic idea behind the tax is to try and use it to correct something that is happening, but that isn’t all that desirable. Examples of negative externalities might include things like pollution and traffic congestion.
Traffic congestion is a bad thing, which is why I have long been a supporter of road pricing. We know how to do this. It has been proven to work in countless cities, including Singapore, London, Stockholm, as well as many others. But in most cases, there isn’t the political will. That has certainly been the case here in Toronto.
Maybe this post will help.
A recent study by ETH Zurich, the University of Basel, and ZHAW has looked at the effects of Pigovian pricing on mobility within Switzerland. The study included 3,700 participants and spanned both French and German-speaking parts of the country.
The way the study works is pretty simple. They took thousands of people, gave them a transportation allowance (in Swiss francs), and then assigned costs to the various mobility options. These costs were intended to be commensurate with their amount of negative societal impact.
Driving, for example, came at a cost of 0.1 Swiss francs per kilometer. Whereas participants actually earned money for walking, since you could fairly easily argue that walking produces a net benefit to society. At the end of the four-week experiment, participants were allowed to pocket whatever money was left in their transportation wallet. So in theory there was an incentive to spend less.
What the researchers were trying to do was simulate Pigovian transport pricing and give people a more direct understanding of the societal costs associated with how they move around. And based on their results, it looks to have worked.
What the results show is that when you start pricing transport in this way, all mobility declines slightly (the “all modes” line). But that the biggest hit is, not surprisingly, driving. Car use declined by almost 5%, whereas walking, biking, and using public transit all increased. (The price elasticity of demand for car travel was found to be similar to when the cost of gas increases — people drive a bit less.)
The authors go on to argue that longer-term Pigovian pricing is likely to produce an even greater impact on mobility, as people would likely adjust and start making bigger decisions about where and how they live. That seems plausible to me.
This past spring a new restaurant called Ooki Pavillon opened in the Sihlfeld neighborhood of Zurich. It’s an izakaya-style Japanese restaurant that is housed in a seven-sided pavilion that was initially constructed in the 1950s. The place looks great (see above), but what you may also find interesting is that the pavilion was initially built as an amenity space (leisure room) for one of Zurich’s first high-rise apartment blocks. Check it on street view, here. Supposedly there are only a handful of these sorts of pavilions remaining in the city. And so it is nice to see this one get repurposed (I don’t know what it was prior to Ooki). It is also a good reminder that, while many of our post-war apartment blocks aren’t the most urban in their approach, rethinking the ground plane can go a long way.
The latest (15th) edition of Knight Frank’s annual The Wealth Report was published last month. I find these interesting because they give you a global view of how and where capital is flowing into real estate (specifically prime real estate). London, for example, did rather well last year despite the pandemic. Buyers from the around the world spent nearly $4 billion on what is commonly referred to as “super-prime properties.” This is real estate with a sale price of US$10 million or more. London saw 201 super-prime properties trade hands last year, with an average price of $18.6 million and with 31 of these transactions being at or above $25 million. This is an increase compared to the year prior (2019), which I suppose is something given that the UK’s housing market was more or less frozen between March and May of last year. These figures put London at the top, ahead of New York and Hong Kong, when it comes to super-prime real estate sales in 2020. (London figures via the Financial Times.)
Another interesting thing that you’ll find in the report is a city ranking that Knight Frank calls their City Trifecta. What this index does is take Knight Frank’s City Wealth Index (which considers where wealth is currently concentrated) and then adds in two other dimensions: innovation and wellbeing. The idea here is that innovation should drive future economic growth and wealth, and that wellbeing (quality of life) is pretty important when it comes to the future competitiveness of our global cities. When you look at the world’s top cities through this lens, the ranking starts to differ from what you may be used to seeing with cities like London, New York, and Hong Kong at the top (see above chart). Now you have Munich taking the number one spot; Boston and Toronto in 5th and 6th position, respectively; and cities like Zurich jumping up ahead of cities like Hong Kong. These kind of rankings always need to be looked at with a critical eye, but they can be interesting nonetheless.
Canada's Sugar Beach is celebrating double digits next week! After 10 years of enjoying sun and sand right downtown, it's hard to imagine the shoreline without those pink umbrellas. Swipe to see what this Toronto favourite looked like before we built it. pic.twitter.com/1BH5acNpXa
One of my favorite public spaces in the city is easily Sugar Beach at the foot of Jarvis Street. So I couldn’t resist sharing this before and after tweet by Waterfront Toronto. Sugar Beach turns 10 years old next week. It’s nearly a teenager.
For those of you who were around and paying attention a decade ago, there was a bit of controversy over the cost of this park — specifically its pink umbrellas. The budget for the park was $14 million and each umbrella cost $11,000.
It’s one of those things that’s easy to single out and make a big deal out of — if that’s what you’re trying to do. “How much? $11,000 for a candy pink beach umbrella? Come on.”
But as Waterfront Toronto explained in this blog post from 2014, each umbrella was fabricated out of a solid piece of fiberglass and was designed to withstand hurricane winds, as well as a good old fashioned Toronto winter. They also serve as lighting for the beach at night.
Part of this is coming from lessons they learned on previous waterfront parks, where the umbrellas weren’t as expensive and haven’t been as resilient to the elements. So there is a whole life cycle cost analysis to be considered here.
Now I don’t profess to be an expert on candy pink beach umbrellas, but I will say this: Sugar Beach wouldn’t be Sugar beach without them. And ten years later, it’s easy to argue for this being one of the most successful public spaces in the city.
P.S. If I could make one small request for Toronto’s waterfront, it’s that we need to better engage the lake. We need proper places to swim. Think of the Strandbad Tiefenbrunnen or the Seebad Enge in Zurich. We may need to tidy things up a little, but it’ll be worth it.
Using data from Turner & Townsend, Curbed recently reported that the most expensive city in the world in which to build is now San Francisco. On average, it costs USD 417 per square foot. San Francisco is followed by New York ($368 psf), London, Zurich, and Hong Kong. New York took the top spot last year, but San Francisco shot up this year because of, you know, tech.
This number was calculated using a blend of six different types of construction, everything from apartment high-rise and prestige office to general hospital and warehouse distribution centers.
Now, I’m not exactly sure what this number includes. But I’m assuming it is only direct construction costs and doesn’t include (contractor) general conditions, land, or any soft costs, which are all significant. Once you add in these other cost inputs, I am sure that you can start to see how things — including the cost of new housing — can quickly escalate.
Love them or hate them (I happen to love them), Toronto’s streetcars are part of this city’s identity. Most North American cities got rid of their streetcars around the middle of the 20th century. But Toronto didn’t. And that has left us with the largest first generation streetcar network in the Americas in terms of total track length, number of cars, and ridership. That’s something. If you’re also a fan of streetcars (or just like geeking out about cities), you may enjoy this little ode to Zürich’s tram network by Monocle. It’s called, “My life as a tram.”
The July/August issue of Monocle is hot off the press and, as has become tradition, it includes their annual Liveable Cities Index. Now, some of this could be construed as objective, but a lot of it is of course subjective. A liveable cities index is also very different from a global cities index, which is why you won’t find New York or London, or Toronto for that matter, on this list. Click here for a video of the 25 most liveable cities in 2019.
I just received the September issue of Monocle magazine. One of the features I always read is the “Observation” on the very last page. It reads as the editor in chief’s personal blog.
In this issue he talks about the recent EU referendum and the changes he is making to his business in response to that. Monocle is headquartered in London, but he is now finding it challenging to be “an international media business in a country that hasn’t figured out how it’s going to move forward.”
His response?
They are shoring up the Zürich office. They are looking at the possibility of a second bureau somewhere on the continent. And they are similarly looking to increase staff in both Toronto and Singapore.
When one place closes up, the companies and talent will find other cities that are open for business.
As someone who is closing one chapter this week and starting a new one, Tyler Brûlé’s Observation also reminded me of the importance of change. Oftentimes change feels uncomfortable. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it’s more likely a sign that you’re on to something.
What have you done lately that made you feel uncomfortable?
Since then (but obviously not because of my post), the idea has seemingly taken off. Below are a couple of excerpts from a recent Guardian article.
This pragmatic and classically Dutch notion is now being copied across Europe: Toulouse, Zurich, Paris as well as several other Dutch cities have night mayors too.
This week the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, announced plans for a “Night-Time Commission”, a six-month assessment of how to protect and manage the city’s £66bn night-time economy which is likely to recommend the creation of a “night-time champion” role.
Berlin is considering it too, and in April, Amsterdam will host the first global Night Mayors’ Summit.
Why is this happening? Simple:
“Late-night people are typically young, educated, creative, entrepreneurial – people you want in your city, and who work in the creative industries and startups you also want. If places like Berlin have flourished, it’s not just because of low rents. It’s because they’re nightlife capitals.”
So if you’re reading this, Mayor John Tory, now is probably your last chance to make Toronto a North American leader in this regard.
It’s great that we are trying to push the Toronto – Waterloo region as a global startup hub, but so is every other major city and region in the world. A focus on startups is so commonplace in today’s economic development strategies, that at this point it almost feels meaningless. What are we going to do to stand out in this competition for the world’s best talent?
If everyone believes something to be true – such as, there’s value in having a robust startup ecosystem – then it’s no longer innovative. It’s just the way things are. To take it to the next level, we’re going to have to do things that will probably feel uncomfortable at first – particularly for old establishment Toronto.
I’m not saying that having a night mayor is going to be the silver bullet for our startup ecosystem. There’s no such thing. But I am saying that it should be one component of our larger strategy.
Because already there’s a growing number of European cities who have come to this one simple realization: people are drawn to kickass places.
If you agree with this post, I would encourage you to leave a comment below and also tweet the Mayor of Toronto.
