Start typing to search this publication.
Brandon Donnelly logo Brandon Donnelly
Open menu
Brandon Donnelly logo

Subscribe to Brandon Donnelly

Get new posts delivered straight to your inbox.

Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 524

Cover image for Three in four Americans believe it's better for the environment if houses are built farther apart

Three in four Americans believe it's better for the environment if houses are built farther apart

  • Environment
  • Esg
  • Green

Living in a low-density place with lots of greenery and open space can feel like a pretty "green" way to live. Maybe you've even got a little garden where you grow delicious tomatoes. And indeed, a lot of people seem to think this is the case. According to this recent YouGov poll (which surveyed 1,000 Americans), 75% of US adult citizens believe that "it's better for the environment if houses are built farther apart." The number drops slightly to 68% for Democrats, but we're still talking about a clear majority.

Most experts will tell you that the opposite is, in fact, true . One of the best ways to be green is to live in a high-density urban setting and get as far away as you can from the natural environment so that you don't screw it up. There are multiple reasons for this, but it generally comes down to the fact that cities use land and other resources far more efficiently on a per capita basis. Smaller living spaces, fewer cars, more things that are shared, and so on.

The reason why this isn't so obvious is that per capita thinking is perhaps harder to grasp. Living in the countryside certainly feels more green than living in the middle of New York City. But what if the 8.5 million or so people in New York City suddenly decided to sprawl outward into the countryside to consume more housing (that would then need to be heated and cooled), and then started driving everywhere (in lieu of taking transit, cycling, and walking)?

This would be a less green outcome. It's about the collective here, not what feels nice and green for any one individual.

Cover image for Toronto proposes at 49% increase to development charges

Toronto proposes at 49% increase to development charges

  • Dc
  • Dc-increase
  • Development-charges

The big news this week for Toronto city builders is that the city has put forward a proposal to substantially increase development charges. Here's a tweet storm that I published earlier today on the topic, and here's a summary of what the new fees might look like:

To translate this into a specific example, let's assume that you're building a 300 unit apartment building with 180 one bedroom suites and 120 two bedroom suites.

Under these proposed DC rates, this would translate into charges of about $9.6mm for the one bedroom suites and $9.8mm for the two bedroom suites, totaling over $19.4mm in DCs alone. But keep in mind that there would be other charges on top of this for parkland dedication, community benefits, and a bunch of other things.

When our cost consultant ran the numbers back in 2019, the estimate was that about a quarter of the price of a new condominium in Toronto was going to government fees and taxes. But with the above increase and with the introduction of policies like inclusionary zoning, I am sure that the number is higher today.

These are easy fees to hide. Most people don't know they exist. And a lot of people don't seem to like new development and new housing. Property taxes on the other hand are highly visible and highly sensitive. So that tax tends to be left alone, especially by comparison.

But these increases are hugely impactful. It means that developers across the city will now need to start looking at increasing rents and prices in order to try and offset it. If they can't, they won't build. And if they can, it will mean that the housing that does ultimately get built will be that much more expensive.

Right-click, save as -- world's first Bored Ape restaurant opens in Long Beach

  • Andy-nguyen
  • Bayc
  • Bored-hungry

https://twitter.com/AndyTheNguyen/status/1513197041710555141?s=20&t=68ekWyKclDcWvfUvZ3v4Dg

The common criticism with NFT art is that it's just a JPEG image. So why bother "owning" it when you can just right-click, save as? Who in their right mind would spend thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands on such a thing?

But as I've argued before, this is missing the bigger picture and missing what this new technology has the potential to empower. Take for example, the new Bored & Hungry restaurant that opened up in Long Beach, California this past weekend (with lines down the block).

It is being dubbed the world's first Bored Ape Yacht Club restaurant, and here's the backstory. Andy Nguyen is a successful food entrepreneur in southern California. And last month he spent US$267,000 on Bored Ape #6184 (yes, a JPEG).

After doing this, he took to Twitter and asked: "Worst decision I've ever made or best idea of all time?" Of course, he clearly had a new business idea in mind.

Fast forward to today and he now has a pop-up restaurant concept that is branded with his Bored Ape. And because the Bored Ape IP is very permissive, he is perfectly within his rights to do this. He can create whatever business he wants on the shoulders of his NFT, as can others with theirs.

His restaurant is also accepting the new ApeCoin that is part of this NFT community, and if you yourself have a Bored Ape, you qualify for perks like free food. All you have to do is scan your crypto wallet. Digital asset ownership = real-life something.

This to me is just one small example of the kind of new businesses that crypto and other digital assets might unlock. And I am sure that it's the tip of the iceberg.

Subscribe to Brandon Donnelly

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