Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 1423

I just came across the following chart via City Clock :

It came from a study that looked at 74 cities in terms of two measures: the percentage of people that travel by car and the traffic congestion levels within those cities.

The way to read the chart is to first look at the red dots. Each dot represents one of the cities studied. The position of the red dot corresponds to that city’s congestion levels. So for example, if we were to take Toronto, the congestion level is 27%.

If you then take that same dot and draw a vertical line to the top of the green shaded area, you get the percentage of people who travel by car. In the case of Toronto, it is 56%.

What’s interesting about this chart is that as congestion levels rise, it forces people out of their cars. In other words, the cities with the highest congestion levels also have the lowest auto share percentages.

But the other way I interpret this chart is that the decision is almost binary: you’re either planning for cars or you’re planning for people. Based on this data, it’s hard to have both.

Earlier this week, I was having a conversation with a number of smart real estate people about the future of retail in today’s internet and smartphone world. This, of course, isn’t a new topic. The industry has been discussing it for years. And while internet retailing still accounts for a relatively small percentage of overall retail sales (~10%) , we all know that change is coming.

One company that came up during our discussion was not surprisingly Amazon.com. But the initial comment was that they don’t make any money. Fortunately for me I had just gone through a presentation by venture capitalist Benedict Evans the night before called: Mobile is eating the world . And so I pulled out my phone and presented this slide:

The fact that Amazon operates with basically no net income is on purpose. Look at their revenue growth! So I wouldn’t dismiss them as being a fad. They may only account for 1% of all US retail sales today, but I’d put money on that percentage growing.

The other reason I bring up Amazon is because, in some ways, I think of them as the online equivalent of a big box store. Just like a Walmart or Costco, where you can buy everything from tires to groceries to prescription drugs, I buy a lot of different things, besides just books, off of Amazon.com. You might do the same as well. And this is where I see the immediate threat to offline retailing and retail real estate: big box stores.

In the second half of the 20th century, big box stores were incredibly disruptive to the retail landscape (and to cities). They used cheap land on the outskirts of cities, cheap buildings, and economies of scale to offer rock bottom prices to consumers. The value proposition was about cheap, not about differentiation. But as cheap as they may be, the internet can still do it cheaper.

And retailers know this, which is why I think they all now sell groceries. Groceries have a very low online penetration. Basically everybody still buys groceries in-person. So if you offer that, you have a reason to draw people inside your store, where they will hopefully buy all the other stuff that they need. But as the online value proposition continues to get stronger, I think we’ll see many other, more significant, changes.

Image: Flickr

Earlier this week I stumbled upon this entertaining article from the Guardian talking about how expensive housing is in London. The author’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion was to setup a new miniature London in the middle of nowhere where everyone could flock for affordable housing, but where many of London’s attributes could be exported: “We can all refuse to wear socks and sell each other overpriced cocktails in jam jars.”

All joking aside, the article is yet another reminder that big global cities are expensive places to live. And in these cities, one of the most precious commodities is, quite simply, personal space. That’s why a garage in London can sell for £550,000 and why a 35 square foot storage cage in New York can sell for $75,000 . 

But affordable housing is not the reason why people want to live in places like London and New York. If it were, they wouldn’t be coming. Instead, they come for lifestyle, wealth creation, and the dating market – among other things. However, at a certain point, usually when they form families and start to need/want more space, they start looking around.

Here’s an infographic via the Atlantic showing how relationship status impacts where people tend to live in London. The purple areas indicate an “above average concentration” of a particular relationship status. As you can see, single people tend to live in the core of the city, and when they get married, they move out to the periphery. Intuitively, this probably makes sense to you.

However, I’m always curious as to whether this trend happens more because of consumer preference (people don’t want to raise kids downtown) or because of economic necessity (they can’t afford anything beyond a shoe box apartment). Because if it is largely out of economic necessity (and the Guardian article would suggest it is), then we’re not creating the inclusive cities and neighborhoods that all city builders like to talk about.

So how do we get better at this?

In my view, and I’ve argued this before, the first step should be about improving supply. That is: get more housing built. And the way to start doing that is to make land available and improve the approvals process for new developments. In a recent McKinsey report , they referred to my first point as “unlocking land.”

“Land cost often is the single biggest factor in improving the economics of affordable housing development. It is not uncommon for land costs to exceed 40 percent of total property prices, and in some large cities, land can be as much as 80 percent of property cost.”

The reason this is important is because most big cities operate with massive supply deficits. There simply isn’t enough housing. And so if you can address that at a fundamental level, you can actually do a lot to start improving affordability.