Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 726

Back in April, the US Census Bureau started running weekly surveys in order to try and assess how COVID-19 was impacting people's lives. They call this the " Household Pulse Survey ." They're now up to week 12, with the latest data running up until July 21, 2020. Here's some housing data that I think many of you will find interesting:

• The July 1, 2019 population estimate for the US was 328,239,523 , of which about 77.7% are persons 18 years or older.

• One of the things that the survey looked at was the total population 18 years or older living in owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing. About 148 million people (~60%) identified as living in the former, about 78 million (~29%) identified as living in the latter, and about 27 million people (~11%) did not report their tenure. This seems to jibe with point number one and the overall home ownership rate in the US.

• For the owners, 1/3 reported to own their home "free and clear" of a mortgage and about 58% said that they made last month's mortgage payment. So about 91% of owners were seemingly okay in June. The remaining ~9% were people who either got a mortgage payment deferral, or simply didn't pay. About 0.5% did not report.

• For the renters, about 5% reported to be living in a home with free rent and about 75% said that they made last month's rental payment. Over 18% said that they missed last month's rent and just over 2% said that they had their rent deferred. The remaining 1% or so are people who simply did not report.

• Combining both tenures, it looks like about 12.5% to 13% of respondents had a bit of a problem paying their housing costs last month. (I'm giving a range, because presumably the "did not report" crowd could go either way.) I don't know about you, but this number doesn't seem all that shocking to me.

If you would like to download a copy of all of the survey results, click here .

One of the first things that I noticed when I visited Rio de Janeiro a few years ago was the clear fixation on safety and security. There are gates and cameras everywhere. And the guidance you tend to receive from the locals usually resolves around how to stay safe. Don't wander around at night. Be careful when you take out your phone. Be mindful of certain areas. You know, those sorts of things.

Of course, you never really know how dangerous a city is because it's one of those things that's impractical to test. You're not going to wander around dark places just to see what the probability of being robbed is. The more sensible thing to do is simply believe what people are telling you and you observe the cues scattered around the built environment.

The result is a general sense of anxiety. You're not quite sure if all the gates and cameras are truly necessary, but their mere presence makes you believe that they might be. I mean, why else would they be so pervasive? Or, could it be that people are overshooting with their investments in safety and security because, well, fear and paranoia are strong motivators?

I was reminded of all of this as I read through Ed Chartlon's recent book review of, Panic City: Crime and Fear Industries in Johannesburg . The title of his review is Anxious Urbanisms , and I think that's a good way of describing some of these phenomenons. It's an urbanism of uncertainty. I haven't read the book (yet), but it's an interesting topic.

So I will leave you all with this excerpt from the review:

Ultimately, what we might take from Panic City, then, is less a comprehensive sociology of crime in the city and more a method of affective analysis. What the book provides is a sense of the ways in which the emotional sphere organises space, how feelings like anxiety or fear or panic, currently widely distributed across the world, materialise themselves, architecturally and politically. If immunity is anything like security, Murray offers us a cautionary tale. For wherever uncertainty thrives, so does the tendency towards paranoid thinking—which is to say, a contagion of a different sort, one that licences regimes of suspicion, self-protection and individual security, and all at the eventual cost of collective wellbeing and interdependence. 

Alex Bozikovic is right to praise Gairloch's upcoming development in the Junction. It's a beautiful project and it's exciting to see so many architecturally significant projects in one neighborhood -- either completed or to be completed. I'm thinking specifically of DUKE Condos (TAS and Quadrangle), our Junction House project (currently under construction), and now Gairloch's.

But Alex (as well as Jeremiah Shamess ) is also right to point out some of the tensions and contradictions that are inherent to building at this scale. We want European-type mid-rise buildings all along our avenues, but we also want our housing to be more affordable. Problem is, mid-rise buildings are the most expensive way to build.

The approvals process also tends to privilege urban design considerations over things like livability and construction costs. We talk about the shadow impacts that the project might have on the surrounding community, but not about how well the suites will layout when it's all said and done -- not to mention how expensive they will be to build.

The cynics will tell you that it doesn't matter what it costs to build because developers will always profit maximize (as is the case with every other for-profit business). But that's an oversimplification that ignores a bunch of factors.

One, it's not as simple as just price. You also have to consider sales velocity. Price and sales velocity tend to be inversely correlated. In other words, as prices increase, sales velocity tends to naturally slow. You then begin to trade-off higher prices for increased time (which has a cost) and more market risk.

As I've said many times before on the blog, development happens on the margin. Usually the way this plays out is that you create a development pro forma, you look at all of your project costs, and then you say, "oh shit." You're then stretching to figure out how you're going to make the math work.

Two, there are usually always parts of a city where development isn't feasible (in some unfortunate cases, it might be the entire city). The potential revenues simply don't support the costs. And as costs continue the rise, any areas that have not seen a corresponding increase in prices and/or rents will also become undevelopable.

So there's price, and there's also a question of where great buildings are even possible. As many have already pointed out, it's certainly not everywhere.