Join >4.5k subscribers and stay updated by getting the latest posts delivered directly to your inbox.
One of the things that I’ve been following over the years (and writing about a lot on this blog) is average condo/apartment sizes, specifically in Toronto. I’m interested in this topic because I think it tells you a lot about what’s going on in the market and who is buying/renting.
Developers are often criticized here for building tiny “shoebox condos.” It wouldn’t be unusual to see a building with an average unit size somewhere in the range of 600-700 square feet.
But it’s important to keep in mind that the pull toward smaller units is largely because of one important reason: affordability. All things being equal, I’m sure that most people would gladly take an expansive 2,000 sf apartment. But how many people can actually afford a place that large? And for those who can afford it, many seem to opt for ground-related housing instead. So for the most part, the market has said: not many.
But I’ve suspected for awhile that it was only a matter of time before we saw unit sizes start to creep upward. And indeed today there seems to be a trend toward larger units. I can’t tell you the exact percentage increase for average unit sizes across the city, but you don’t have to look very hard to find a proposed project with average unit sizes in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 sf. I spent this morning looking many of them up and going through their data sheets. If any of you have a larger sample size, please share it in the comment section below.
To me this feels like a maturation of the market. More of us are deciding to move up, instead of out, which is absolutely what we need to do. Affordability, perhaps more than ever, is still a concern. But the confluence of a couple of factors seem to be expanding the multi-family market in this direction.
One, empty nesters are starting to cash out of their large houses and they still want/need space. Two, the price of low-rise housing has increased so dramatically that it’s now out of reach for many and/or it no longer feels cost competitive on a per square foot basis. Three, Toronto’s status as a global city continues to increase and this is making it more of a magnet for foreign capital. And four, central and transit-adjacent housing is incredibly desirable for a large segment of the population. Horrible traffic is probably helping this one.
If there’s any truth to my logic, then I wonder if we won’t see a bit of a bifurcation in the market, if we aren’t already. On the one end, there will still be the pull to shrink unit sizes and maximize affordability. See micro-units. But on the other end, there will be a product segment that now acts as a substitute for low-rise housing.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: I think more families in condos and apartments would be a positive thing for the city.
The following chart represents births in the United States per 1,000 people. The segment in red demarcates the birth years between 1946 and 1964, which is generally considered to represent the Post-World War II population spike known as the Baby Boom. Besides this jump, we have for the most part been seeing declining birth rates.
“US Birth Rates” by Saiarcot895. Licensed under CC0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Given the magnitude of this population segment, demographers and others love to talk about the impact that this generation has had and will continue to have on society, particularly as many Baby Boomers now start to enter retirement.
But arguably one of the most significant areas of impact could be the housing market. Today, I stumbled upon an interesting CityLab article from last year talking about “The Great Senior Sell-Off.” And it raises an important question: As Baby Boomers begin to sell off their large single-family homes in the suburbs, will there be enough people to buy them?
For the most part, the next generation seems to still want a nice detached house in order to raise a family. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the numbers will match up. Because if you factor in generation size, buying power, and even small shifts in consumer preference (towards, say, urban centers), the equation may not balance.
If this ends up being the case, I don’t think it’ll impact large, growing cities as much. I mean, most are operating today with severe supply deficits. Instead it’ll probably be the smaller, perhaps already declining cities, that feel it the most. And this will ultimately serve to reinforce the “spiky” world that we’re already seeing today.
At least that’s my hunch.
Continuing with our discussion of Vancouver, I was reading today that baby boomers in the metro area (those aged 55 and older) are estimated to be holding over $163 billion of clear title property. That is, homes without any mortgage. This figure comes from Rennie Marketing Systems out of Vancouver.
What’s interesting about this number is that it signals both a lot of equity that could be used for downsizing, rightsizing and lateral moves into a condo, and a source of capital for millennials to buy their first home. In fact, according to a survey that Rennie Marketing also conducted, somewhere around 40% of first time buyers in Vancouver are getting deposit help from their parents and/or grandparents.
But the question that comes to my mind is: Are there going to be enough middle aged people willing and able to buy $163 billion worth of real estate? Because one person’s sale is another person’s buy.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog