Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 538

https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1498709928734826510?s=20&t=5u9z90gEBwu0ebJgKC3Q_w

Some of you might remember my Jimmy the Greek Reopening Index . It has become my crude way of measuring office utilization in Toronto's CBD. Based on this I can tell you that utilization is firmly up this week. Most lunch spots in Toronto's PATH are back to having lines and the people working at these fine establishments are saying things like "finally" and "the people are back." All of this is, of course, anecdotal. And I am not saying that we are back to pre-COVID levels. But there was a clear and meaningful uptick this week, which happens to coincide with the lifting of a number of COVID restrictions.

Now let's consider some actual numbers. I don't know what they are for Toronto's CBD (if you do, please share them in the comments below), but Kastle Systems has what seems like accurate "office swipe card" data for the 10 largest US cities. What this data tells us as of the end of February 2022 is that there has been a " return to normal, but not to the office ." Compared to 2019, NBA games are at 93.3%, movie theater ticket sales are at 89.4%, TSA checkpoints are at 87.8%, OpenTable reservations are at 87%, and yet office utilization sits on average at 36.8%.

The "best" performing city is Austin with an average utilization of 53.4% as of February 23. And the "worst" performing city is San Francisco with an average utilization of 26.1% as of the same date. This makes intuitive sense given that tech has been pretty much leading the charge when it comes to remote and flexible work. Still, things are heading up and to the right. And as I argued at the beginning of this year with my annual predictions, I continue to believe that the majority of office workers will return at some point. Offices aren't going away. And I think they're going to remain the dominant place of work.

Chart: Bloomberg

Knight Frank just released the 16th edition of its Wealth Report along with the disclaimer that, with everything going on in Ukraine right now, this outlook is of "little relative importance" and kind of doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. In any event, it includes the latest edition of their Prime International Residential Index (PIRI 100), which looks at the annual % change in luxury residential prices around the world. The chart is interactive, but I screenshotted (above) the top risers and fallers. Toronto is 4th in the Americas and 7th globally with a 20.3% year-over-year increase. Miami is also no surprise and came in 4th globally. The top three cities were Dubai, Moscow, and San Diego. Thankfully though, the number two city is in serious jeopardy right now and I suspect that its position will look quite different next year. Money will go where it feels safe and secure.

https://twitter.com/alexbozikovic/status/1498757441697243145?s=20&t=hlOq_Bp6aBdul3GpYV8PpQ

I just discovered a new alliance of non-partisan, non-profit resident and ratepayer groups in the Greater Toronto Area that have come together in opposition of what they see as "unregulated overdevelopment and the lack of sensible growth vision for the GTA." If you'd like to read through their public letter to the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, you can do that over here .

In it you will learn that the Toronto region is vying desperately for the title of the most densely populated place on earth by trying to compete with already established locales like the slums of Mumbai and Monk Kok in Hong Kong. One has to admire ambition.

But what is not clear to me is what exactly "sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable developments" should look like. Should we quash our low-rise "Neighbourhood" designations (the majority of our land area) and instead blanket the region with mid-rise buildings similar to Paris? This is one option and, by the way, Paris is far denser than Toronto (relevant reading here and here ).

Or should we maintain our low-rise "Neighbourhoods" exactly as they are and simply reduce overall housing supply by limiting height and/or density at our transit stations? Is this the ask? I'm not sure. But this is a good question for city builders: What should sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable development look like? Is the 33-storey building that I live in sensible?