Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 335

Here's some recent data, via CityLab , suggesting that Americans are walking less and driving less, but killing more people when they do drive around. (The report is based on data from 2019 to 2022.)

My first reaction to these high-level findings is that they seem to make sense. This time period was the pandemic. And people were locked away at home (though I used to take some seriously long walks around downtown during this dark time).

So I don't know, I'm not sure we can conclude that walking less is truly a structural phenomenon. Similarly, I'm not sure that we can immediately conclude that cars are becoming increasingly more dangerous.

According to Wikipedia , deaths per capita, deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled, and total deaths, have all been generally declining in the US since the 1960s.

However, I do wonder if there's some sort of correlation between people walking less and car-related fatalities. The most dangerous streets, in my mind, are often the ones that don't have a lot of pedestrians.

That's why, broadly speaking, it feels safer walking around Manhattan than it does Los Angeles. So maybe less people walking is enough to trigger an increase in pedestrian fatalities.

Back in undergrad, I spent a summer living and working in Taipei and Hong Kong. It was my first time being in either of these cities and I absolutely loved it. I was studying architecture. I was really developing my love of big cities. And these felt like two very real and big cities.

Below is a cheesy tourist photo that I paid someone to take of me from the Kowloon Pier. I still have access to it because obviously my mom has it framed and prominently displayed in her kitchen:

I'm sharing this photo because one of the things that really stood out to me about Hong Kong, in particular, was how they lit their buildings. There were neon signs (which is something that Hong Kong is, or least was, famous for); lights shining up into the sky (bad, I know); and full light shows and animations across entire building elevations.

I immediately thought to myself: "Why don't we have fun like this? Especially considering that Toronto can get kind of dark during the winter."

Well, some twenty years later, we are now starting to have more lights. We fought hard for our placemaking sign at Junction House . The CN Tower has since been illuminated. And most recently, we got 160 Front Street West . But it turns out that building lights can be a little divisive:

https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1720125919753310413?s=20

My view is exactly what it was when I first landed in hot and humid Hong Kong. And so I respectfully disagree with Jocelyn Squires (though I have great admiration for her work). Architectural lighting adds color and dynamism to our cities. It can also help our cities from all looking the same.

Let's stop being so conservative and have some fun. Nice work, 160 Front.

During COVID, every developer was terrified that their costs were going to run way from them. According to this recent Globe and Mail article , residential building costs increased 55% since 2020. At the same time, city fees were being increased and some people, for whatever reason, believed this would not have an impact on home prices. Developers will always seek to profit maximize and charge whatever the market will bear, so why bother trying to reduce costs? This is/was one school of thought.

Despite this cost fear, the market managed to keep up for a period of time. Capital was cheap, as we all know. And that kept things going, until it was no longer the case. According to the same Globe article , there are 83 residential projects and 28,428 homes that have not launched (sales) over the last two years in the Greater Toronto Area because of market conditions. This year alone, the number is estimated at 14,000 homes. So supply has fallen off, and that's because demand and buying power have fallen off.

But let's think of this in economics terms. Price and quantity demanded are usually inversely correlated. Meaning, if the price of something goes up, demand will go down. And if the price of something goes down, demand will go up. So in theory, there are still prices that will get 28,428 people excited to buy a new home. I mean, if I were to list a condo in downtown Toronto for $500 psf right now, I'm pretty sure that most with the means would jump at the opportunity.

The problem is that whatever these prices are, they are largely beneath the floor price of where most developers can build to today. Developers weren't bluffing, costs really are too high now. And when this happens, the answer is simple: you can't build. A new equilibrium will eventually be found. But in the short-term, we should all expect new housing supply to remain limited. And because there's always a lag with real estate, the effects of this shortage will be felt in the years to come.