Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 543

https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1492933259730329606?s=20&t=rJBY1NPd4XF1WJ6odJ3Drg

I have enjoyed photography for as long as I can remember. But I got into it in earnest during undergrad while studying architecture. At that time, Toronto-based photographer Sam Javanrouh was in the early days of running his decade-long photoblog called daily dose of imagery . And I remember checking it religiously to see his captures of the city. This was a fairly novel medium for photos at the time. Instagram wouldn't arrive for another 7 or so years. So I found it deeply inspiring.

So much so that I went over to Henry's at the corner of Queen and Church, bought a refurbished Canon Rebel, and started capturing my own photos of Toronto -- often at night after school. I'm positive that I'd be embarrassed if I ever pulled out those old photos from the archives, but regardless, photography more or less stuck with me as a hobby. It also formed an integral part of the design portfolio that I used to get into graduate architecture school. (My photos proved to be less useful for business school.)

I later moved onto shooting with Fujifilm cameras (currently a Fujifilm X-T3). And nowadays I mostly shoot when I'm traveling and have some free time. But two decades after buying that refurbed Rebel, I can't help but feel like we are at yet another important turning point in the evolution of photography (and, of course, art more broadly). We now have tools and technologies that allow for the ownership of digital assets. ( See non-fungible tokens .)

So I have decided to start minting and making my photography available for sale on Foundation . The first collection is called "Be a global citizen", and the plan is to slowly add my photography from around the world to it. The floor price is currently set at 0.25 ETH. And all of the photos were taken on my Fujifilm X-T3. I hope you like it. To check out the collection, click here .

https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1492693964880846850?s=20&t=mUTKDVuP7TG_wRC_ZndiLQ

I tweeted this out last night while watching old reruns of Anthony Bourdain's Parts Unknown series. This was a great show. If I were to give everything up and become a YouTuber, this is the kind of travel and food channel I would want to make, except that I would naturally have to add in some equal parts around architecture, planning, and real estate.

The responses to my tweet were of course mixed. Some people agreed and some people didn't. And a few people provided examples of great cities that aren't particularly known for their openness to new entrants -- places like Tokyo. This kind of response is not at all surprising given how divisive this topic has always been throughout history.

But here's what I was thinking:

1/ There are some obvious current case studies. Consider places like Toronto and Miami, where foreign born residents now make up the majority of the population. These are two fast growing and dynamic cities that wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting without their immigrant populations. Certainly the food wouldn't be as good.

2/ Many of the most beautiful cultures in the world are the result of different cultures coming together. Brazil is one example that comes to mind. Throughout history they have been one of the largest recipients of immigrants in the western hemisphere. Sadly, Brazil was also the last country in the western world to abolish slavery.

3/ Rome and Tokyo were cited (in the comments) as two great cities that frankly aren't all that diverse. According to Wikipedia , less than 10% of Rome's population is non-Italian. But Rome, while nice, is provincial these days. And Tokyo, while awesome, has a bit of a demographic problem.

4/ Even if you think a place doesn't have a lot of immigrants and maybe isn't all that diverse, it is still probably the result of diverse cultures coming together at multiple points throughout history. Maybe because of immigration. Or maybe because of something bad like war. Think of the Moors from northern Africa who crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and conquered the Iberian Peninsula.

5/ An openness to new people could signal and probably does signal an openness to other things. And since we are living in a world that thrives on innovation and new ideas, being open strikes me as being a fairly good and useful characteristic to have.

6/ Lastly, I come from a family of immigrants. I self-identify as being entirely Canadian. But I had to come from somewhere (multiple places, in fact). And so it strikes me as being odd and entirely selfish to want to block the flow of people now that I'm here and established.

What are your thoughts?

Colliers recently hosted a webinar about inclusionary zoning here in Toronto. On the panel was Jeremiah Shamess (SVP at Colliers / moderator), David Bronskill (partner at Goodmans), Giulio Cescato (senior planner at IBI Group), and Richard Witt (principal at BDP Quadrangle). I wasn't able to attend (either because of a critical meeting or because I was off attending to a gluttonous lunch burrito), but the slides are now available online. I was going through them this morning and I came across this chart from NBLC :

What you are seeing here is a comparison between a typical market development before IZ and a development after IZ. As you can see, soft costs remain the same, hard costs remain the same, and the profit margin remains the same. What changes is the overall revenue. Market revenue goes down because you now have fewer market-rate units and a new IZ revenue is added, which is the revenue generated from the addition of affordable units to the project.

But when you add up the market revenue and the IZ revenue, you don't get back to the same economic equilibrium. In other words, there has been a destruction of value, and so something is going to have to give in order for this project to pencil and remain financeable. Otherwise, no development will take place. This shortfall is the red box area in the above graph that says, "impact of inclusionary zoning."

We have discussed this red box gap a lot on the blog, because how you think this gap gets filled might determine how you think of inclusionary zoning as a policy tool. In this particular instance/graph, the gap is filled by a reduction in the value of the land. Everything else remains static. So what is effectively happening in this model is that the landowner, who has decided to sell their land to the above developer, is now the one who has to indirectly pay for this new affordable housing.

This may seem like a sensible way to go about it. I mean, people who own land must be rich. Let's make them pay. But is this actually what is going to happen in practice and over extended periods of time? Soft costs -- things like development charges -- are always going up. Why aren't land values perpetually declining in order to offset these additional costs? It is largely because market revenues have also been increasing. Housing keeps getting more expensive. And that is what has been keeping the market going.

I suspect that over an extended period of time, the same thing will happen here.