Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 534

https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1503859359184531456?s=20&t=t5OjJNcGwJM_g5CjD8d4kg

https://twitter.com/olivercameron/status/1501671103806132224?s=20&t=dMqBjak2r8nVyXZrDfSyyQ

These are two short videos of autonomous Cruise vehicles driving around San Francisco. Cruise, which is owned by General Motors, received a permit from the state of California to operate autonomous vehicles -- without a safety driver -- in September of last year. In November 2021, one of the cofounders of Cruise took the first ever driverless taxi ride in the company's history. And on February 1, 2022, Cruise announced that it was opening up to the public.

If you read the comments on Twitter you'll see that some people have found these vehicles to be hyper reactive to traffic lights and to do oddly long pauses at stop signs. So I guess they're not perfect. But oddly long pauses are certainly better than not stopping at all. Either way, this is a big deal. I'm not sure if these are the first unsupervised autonomous vehicles out in the wild, but they are easily some of the first.

There has been a lot of discussion over the last few years about autonomy being a hugely tricky technical problem to solve. One that is perhaps more difficult than a lot of people thought it would be at the outset. I'm assuming that this is at least one of the reasons why ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft ended up selling off their AV divisions while searching for profitability.

But the market never gave up and it's pretty exciting to see this coming to fruition. Oliver Cameron is VP, Product at Cruise and the former CEO of Voyage (which was acquired by Cruise last year). If his tweets (above) are any indication, San Francisco is going to be seeing many more autonomous vehicles in the coming months.

This is going to have a profound impact on the unit economics for ride sharing companies like Uber, but more importantly it is likely to have a profound impact on our cities. Mobility innovations have a way of doing that. Some of the impacts might be negative, but I believe that many of the impacts can and will be positive.

As most of you will know, I am a believer in dense and walkable cities. I do not believe in planning cities around cars. And so that is not what I am advocating for here. My view is simply that I think autonomy grants us the ability to rethink our definition of a "vehicle." And maybe it becomes something that more closely resembles public transit. That could be a positive thing for our cities and something that draws people away from private vehicle ownership.

So I remain both optimistic and excited about what's to come.

Have any of you had a chance to ride in an autonomous vehicle? If so, leave a comment below or on Twitter .

Axios and Generation Lab have something new called the Next Cities Index . The goal is to track US work and culture trends through people's geographic preferences. For their first cities index, they asked over 2,100 students in the US, on two separate occasions, the following question: "Considering all factors that matter to you, where would you most like to live after college?"

The aggregate answer to this question is shown above. But they also collected people's incomes (anticipated since they're students?), political affiliations, and gender. The list of cities changes slightly when you sort based on these different factors, but not by much. Seattle, New York, and Los Angeles remain top cities -- at least in people's minds.

It is, however, interesting to note that about 45% of respondents had different answers to where they want to live and where they think they will live. For a number of reasons, the city of people's dreams isn't often a practical or realistic choice it would seem. Still, wanting a particular place still tells you certain things I suppose.

Given all the chatter over this pandemic, I would have thought that Miami would have appeared higher up on this want list.

Chart: Axios/Generation Lab

Marty over at Laneway Housing Advisors published this listing in his newsletter today. It's for an entitled lot at 78 Gladstone Avenue in Toronto that has been approved (by way of a minor variance) for 6 units. Five units in the front where a house currently sits and one unit at the back in a standalone laneway suite. Though it also happens to be a corner lot and so the laneway suite isn't really "in the back".

It's listed for $2.5M. And according to the description, you can build about 5,500 square feet (4,200 sf in the front with a 1,300 sf laneway suite). This ask translates into a land cost that is just over $450 per buildable square foot, which is far more than what high-density land typically trades for in the city right now. This is usually the case for smaller low-rise sites.

To help put this figure into some kind of context, Bullpen Consulting published in their latest insights report that the average high-density land price in Q4-2021 was $135 per buildable square foot in Toronto (416 area code only). Of course, averages only tell you so much. To truly evaluate the feasibility of a site like this, you'd need to create your own pro forma and do your own residual land value calculation. The value of development land depends on what you can build on it.

If you were to do that, I suspect that you would discover at least two things: 1) you would find it challenging to make the numbers work, particularly for rental housing, and 2) you would quickly realize that this sort of "missing middle" housing isn't, in its current form, some undiscovered bastion of housing affordability.

Part of the problem is that these 6 units are not being delivered on an as-of-right basis. Somebody had to go out and entitle the land in order to secure these permissions. That means that time and money were spent and that the current owner is now rightly seeking a margin for their efforts. But if we collectively believe that this is an appropriate and sensible form of housing, then this should not be a necessary step in the whole process. Especially for only 6 units.

All of this being said, we know that Toronto and many other cities around the world are taking a hard look at this issue . And that there is a groundswell of interest in allowing more housing in our low-rise communities. It's going to be a battle -- just look at how Toronto's new garden suite policies have now been appealed by various resident's groups. But I'm certain that we'll get there, just like we are getting there with laneway housing and other types of ADUs.