Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 1534

I am a real estate developer and I believe in progress. But I also fundamentally believe in balancing progress and preservation . I’ve said this before.

This morning, Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail, published a piece on the epic Mirvish + Gehry proposal for Toronto’s Entertainment District. It’s called, “ Frank Gehry and David Mirvish’s tall order in Toronto. ”

Now, I’ve said before that I like this project. I don’t mind the height and I don’t buy the argument that there aren’t enough public spaces in the area. There’s David Pecaut Square directly to the south that could use a few more warm bodies in it.

But as I also said before , I think the key concern here is one of heritage. There are 4 heritage designated buildings on the site dating back to as early as 1901. Here’s where they sit:

The Anderson Building (1915) is particularly unique. Here’s a larger photo ( via blogTO ):

So while I’m excited by the prospect of a real Gehry project in Toronto, I think we need to figure out a way to find a balance. Preserve the facades, build on top, or relocate them. Do something besides wipe the slate clean.

As Bozikovic rightly points out in his article, “ Toronto has a sophisticated culture of working with heritage buildings .” There are lots of great examples of how we managed to move forward as a city, without erasing our past.

And in many ways, I see this ability to work with and build upon heritage buildings as an emerging Toronto vernacular. I mean, what could be more appropriate for the most diverse city on the planet than an architectural style–of our own–that blends and layers history with disparate design ideologies.

I sense an opportunity.

We could have Gehry’s white sinuous curves drape over the heritage buildings. Make them become a literal unveiling of Toronto’s past and a metaphor for the sophisticated way in which we build upon legacy.

It’s too easy to just demolish everything. We’re better than that.

I just came across the following generational home buying data from the National Association of Realtors in the US  ( via Curbed SF ):

It was initially published in July 2013 and so I think the data represents what happened in 2012. The report isn’t exactly clear about the timing. In any event, what I found more interesting is how the various generations perceive the utility of agents. There are different use cases.

Millenials feel the need to have an agent help them navigate the purchasing process. This makes sense, as many of them would be first time buyers. However, Millenials are also almost 4x more likely to engage agents for “a limited set of services as requested by the seller”, as opposed to just a conventional full service brokerage agreement.

On the other hand, older buyers like to have an agent help them identify property deficiencies and sellers over 32 years old use a full service broker more than 80% of the time. I find this interesting because it starts to speak to potential changes in the marketplace.

Looking at a more recent report from the NAR ( 2013 Profile of Buyers and Sellers ), I found it surprising to learn that the share of buyers who used an agent went from 69% in 2001 to 88% in 2013. Even with the internet disrupting so many industries, realtor market share has actually grown over the last decade.

Not surprisingly, the percentage of sellers who used an agent is also 88%. This is because the dual-agency model requires that both sides of the marketplace be represented.

Finally, the percentage of sellers who sold their home without an agent is roughly 9%. And 46% said it was because they wanted to save on commission. I’m assuming that the reason the math doesn’t add up (9% for-sale-by-owner + 88% agent) is because of estate sales, auctions and so on.

The real estate marketplace is an interesting one. What do you think we’ll see in the future?

Instead of talking about the latest Rob Ford scandal  (honestly, how is he still mayor?), I’d like to focus on his abilities as a transportation strategist.

Here’s an excerpt from a Toronto Star article published this morning that talks about the urban vs. suburban divide in this city and our inability to depoliticize transit planning. It’s called, "Suburban envy only makes things worse: James."

In another committee room, councillors were debating the proposed downtown relief subway line — only, they were afraid to name it such. Downtown is a section of the city that dares not voice its name, for fear that aggrieved suburbanites will rise up and object.

This is not hyperbole. Not long ago, the mayor indicated he is not interested in the relief line until there are subways on Sheppard East and on Finch West. Why? Because downtown “has enough subways.”

Downtown has enough subways? Do you think Ford looked at population density, number of stops, ridership levels, and so on, in order to come up with this position? Or did he just look at where his voter base resides?

We need to get past this downtown vs. suburban schism. We’re all in this together. In fact, the whole Golden Horseshoe region is in this together. And until we start acting as a unified entity, we’re not going to reach our full potential.