Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 100

View post on X →

I tweeted this yesterday (please forgive the grammar mistake).

What it shows is a bunch of narrow urban properties ranging, for the most part, from 5 to 7 storeys. Some of them are old buildings, and some are new. Regardless, the point I wanted to make was that this is a scale and rhythm of building that does wonders for cities. They’re dense, they have a compact footprint, and they promote urban vibrancy.

And yet, it's a building type that is far too difficult to develop in many cities. It is not always the case, but oftentimes the only way to underwrite these kinds of projects is to make them ultra high-end. That's a shame. So let’s talk about this a little more, starting with what makes this urban pattern so appealing.

One key thing that narrow lots and narrow retail frontages do is increase the number of destinations within walking distance. This promotes visual interest by always showing you something new.

At the same time, there are numerous economic benefits to this urban pattern. Smaller shops lower the barrier to entry for small businesses and allow greater adaptability. Change is able to happen faster, and if one or two businesses happen to turnover on a street, it’s not the end of the world.

One way I like to think of this is in terms of shops per step .

For example, let's assume that the average walking speed is 4 km/hour and that, as a starting point, fine-grained urbanism translates into storefronts that are around 6 m wide. This would mean the average person walking on a street would see a new shop (or retail frontage) about every 9 steps.

If we instead assume a retail frontage of something like 30 m (which is five times our original 6 m), then the average person would need approximately 43 steps for every shop. This is a meaningful difference that fundamentally changes the character of a street. If you’ve ever walked on a great main street, you know this, even if you’ve never explicitly acknowledged it.

But this is only the ground floor. The other benefit of these simple, straight-up infills is that they also bring homes and offices to the same compact footprint. Density is good. It is a prerequisite for urban vibrancy. And it can be achieved simply. Strip away the facade ornament from the building examples in my tweet, and these are extruded boxes with no stepbacks to speak of.

This used to be how many (or most) cities built fabric buildings at scale, but for many reasons, we forgot how. One of the reasons is that we’ve generally made building things more onerous, and that means developers need bigger and bigger projects to justify the costs.

But it's clear our desire to experience human-scaled environments hasn’t changed. So I reckon it’s about time to bring back the skinny extruded boxes.

Cover photo by Praewthida K on Unsplash

Architecture billings are typically viewed as a leading indicator for the development industry. That's because, in order to build things, you need permits. And in order to get permits, you need architects to draw things.

So every month, the American Institute of Architects surveys design firms as a way to determine how the industry is doing. The primary question it asks is: Have your billings increased, decreased, or stayed the same in the month that just ended? Based on the proportion of respondents choosing each option, an Architecture Billings Index (ABI) score is created.

A score of 50 means there has been no change in billings from the previous month. A score above 50 indicates an increase. And a score below 50 indicates a decrease. Here's this score for August 2024 to August 2025:

Billings are down across the US. In fact, the survey notes that the value of design contracts has declined for an 18th consecutive month, marking the longest period of decline since the survey started 15 years ago. This is true across all regions, though the South has the best relative performance and the West has the worst. The commercial/industrial sector also appears to have the best relative performance, which, I'm only guessing, could be a result of things like data centers.

I don't have perfectly comparable data for Canada, but I know that architecture billings are way down in markets like Toronto and Vancouver. Architecture and development firms continue to lay off people, which is the strongest kind of indicator.

One of the things I always find interesting is how globally connected we all are. Real estate may be a local business, but it does depend on global capital flows and overall sentiment. The US market is soft . The Canadian market is soft — with some markets being largely shut off, to be more precise. And when I was in Paris last month , I heard a lot of the same from architects and developers (except from those able to subsist on government work).

Images: AIA / Detek ABI (August 2025)

One of the most popular blog posts that I have ever written on this blog over the last 12 years is this one: Canada must become a global superpower . And in this post, I argue that Canada needs to create a sovereign wealth fund, and that we have Norway to look to as a model. This is a topic that is raised semi-frequently in Canada. Just this past week, John Ruffolo, who is the Founder and Managing Partner of Maverix Private Equity, published this opinion piece in the Globe and Mail . Here's an excerpt:

Aging demographics, high taxes, deficits and unproductive wealth trapped in housing mean we simply don’t generate large capital pools for productive assets. Our pension funds, though world-class in size and governance, largely bypass Canadian innovators in favour of global opportunities. Our venture and private equity funds rely heavily on U.S. investors. Our banks, stable by design, avoid the kind of long-term risk capital required to build sovereign industries.

A sovereign wealth fund is not a slush fund. Done properly, it is a professionally managed pool of assets, governed independently, with two purposes: strengthen [Canada] sovereignty and generate long-term returns.

Canada has never had a true national sovereign wealth fund similar to what Norway, Singapore and others have done. That is, we don't have a federal-level, state-owned investment fund built from natural resource surpluses, trade surpluses, or foreign exchange reserves. What we have instead is a provincial SWF called the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund (AHSTF).

Many Albertans will be quick to point out that the province's non-renewable resource revenues should remain that of the province. But let's be clear: this fund has not done what it set out to do. It has failed due to political interference and a governance structure that does not promote long-term thinking.

Established in 1976 with an initial capital contribution of CAD 1.5 billion, the annual share of non-renewable resource revenues to be contributed was initially set at 30%. This was later reduced to 15%, and then in 1987, mandatory annual contributions were eliminated, making it more of an ad hoc thing. On top of this, over CAD 33 billion has been withdrawn from the fund over its life for various expenditures. The result is current assets under management of approximately CAD 30 billion.

To put this AUM into perspective, if the AHSTF had instead taken its initial contribution of CAD 1.5 billion, invested it into the S&P 500 in 1976, and then sat on its ass for the next half decade doing absolutely nothing besides keeping the fund active, it would today have a value of approximately CAD 160 billion (assuming an average annual return of 10% with dividends reinvested).

Now let's compare it to the Norway Government Pension Fund Global (their oil fund). This fund only received its initial capital contribution of ~USD 240 billion in 1996. But unlike Alberta, 100% of oil and gas revenues are contributed , there have never been any withdrawals, and governance is not political — it's independent and legally protected. The result is current assets under management of approximately USD 2 trillion, making it the world's largest sovereign wealth fund.

For fun, I asked AI to come up with an assets under management estimate for a Canadian Sovereign Wealth Fund had it been established in 1976 with the same CAD 1.5 billion initial contribution; had we made annual oil & gas revenue contributions ranging from $5 to $15 billion; had we achieved an annual return of 6% (like Norway); and had we never done any withdrawals due to strong governance and political independence.

The result is an AUM range between CAD 1.5 trillion and 4.4 trillion. In other words, Canada could, today, be sitting on the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. But you know what the next best thing to this is? Starting one today.

Cover photo by Hermes Rivera on Unsplash