There are lots of ideas out there for how to improve the supply of new rental housing. But it is important to remember, at least here in our market, that the playing field is not level between new condominiums and new rental homes. We have spoken about this before, over here, where I compared the (per square foot) revenue generated from your average new condo against that generated by your average new rental home. Of course, since I wrote that post in 2020, we have seen upward pressure on cap rates (meaning downward pressure on values). So feasibility has gotten even more challenging.
https://twitter.com/benmyers29/status/1642120297858977793?s=20
The important thing to remember is that developers do not have some philosophical aversion to building more rental housing; it is that the math is challenging. You generally need economies of scale (really big projects), patient long-term capital, and a belief that rents will continue to exhibit meaningful positive growth. If you want to negatively impact new supply, cap rental growth. But if you want to encourage new supply, somebody needs to pull out a development pro forma and make the call to improve the cost structure for new rental housing.
In my opinion, two obvious line items to focus on are development charges (as well as the other government levies) and HST (our harmonized sales tax). The point of development charges, as we always talk about, is for growth to pay for growth. They are intended to pay for municipal services like roads, transit, water and sewer, and so on. In the other words, they're supposed to capture of the cost impacts of new housing. But what about the impact of not building enough new rental housing? Are we thinking about this the right way? Especially if you consider the possibility of more new rental housing in our existing transit nodes.
The HST charged on new rental housing is also significant. There is a new residential rental property rebate available to builders (not tax advice!), but the thresholds have not been indexed and so it's grossly out of date compared to where values sit today. In any event, if the goal is more homes, why not make new rental homes exempt? Developers are simple. If the math works, they will build. If the math doesn't work, they will not build. And these two line items, alone, would go a long way to helping the former.
Photo by Pierre Châtel-Innocenti on Unsplash
Big Ben Myers of Bullpen Consulting doesn't usually have strong opinions on Twitter (obviously joking), but I did see him respond to this tweet this morning:
https://twitter.com/benmyers29/status/1632377162404712448?s=20
The assertion he is responding to is basically this: "developers are stupid because they tend to hold onto land during downturns, instead of building through them." On some level, I think I know where this line of thinking is coming from. It's the whole Warren Buffet philosophy of "being fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful."
But what it ignores is development feasibility. Developers typically rely heavily on the availability of debt financing. First you need land financing in order to acquire the land, and then, once you have your entitlements, condominium pre-sales and/or any other requirements in place, you move onto a construction loan (which often "takes out" your land loan).
Maybe you have deep enough pockets to fund everything with cash, but most of the time that is not the case. And so if these debt facilities are not available to you, then you are not building.
The other part of this equation is that, during downturns, it can be harder to forecast your future revenues. What can I sell/rent this space for, and how long will it take to absorb? These are difficult questions in the best of times, but they're even more difficult when you don't have a lot of market activity/comparables to point to.
All of this contributes to debt being less available, especially for smaller developers. It also makes new sites difficult to underwrite. Because as we have talked about many times before on this blog, land should be the residual claimant in a development pro forma. Revenue minus development costs equals how much you can afford to pay for land.
If the math doesn't work and if you can't get financing, it almost certainly doesn't matter how much "leading" you feel like doing. You're not building.
There are lots of ideas out there for how to improve the supply of new rental housing. But it is important to remember, at least here in our market, that the playing field is not level between new condominiums and new rental homes. We have spoken about this before, over here, where I compared the (per square foot) revenue generated from your average new condo against that generated by your average new rental home. Of course, since I wrote that post in 2020, we have seen upward pressure on cap rates (meaning downward pressure on values). So feasibility has gotten even more challenging.
https://twitter.com/benmyers29/status/1642120297858977793?s=20
The important thing to remember is that developers do not have some philosophical aversion to building more rental housing; it is that the math is challenging. You generally need economies of scale (really big projects), patient long-term capital, and a belief that rents will continue to exhibit meaningful positive growth. If you want to negatively impact new supply, cap rental growth. But if you want to encourage new supply, somebody needs to pull out a development pro forma and make the call to improve the cost structure for new rental housing.
In my opinion, two obvious line items to focus on are development charges (as well as the other government levies) and HST (our harmonized sales tax). The point of development charges, as we always talk about, is for growth to pay for growth. They are intended to pay for municipal services like roads, transit, water and sewer, and so on. In the other words, they're supposed to capture of the cost impacts of new housing. But what about the impact of not building enough new rental housing? Are we thinking about this the right way? Especially if you consider the possibility of more new rental housing in our existing transit nodes.
The HST charged on new rental housing is also significant. There is a new residential rental property rebate available to builders (not tax advice!), but the thresholds have not been indexed and so it's grossly out of date compared to where values sit today. In any event, if the goal is more homes, why not make new rental homes exempt? Developers are simple. If the math works, they will build. If the math doesn't work, they will not build. And these two line items, alone, would go a long way to helping the former.
Photo by Pierre Châtel-Innocenti on Unsplash
Big Ben Myers of Bullpen Consulting doesn't usually have strong opinions on Twitter (obviously joking), but I did see him respond to this tweet this morning:
https://twitter.com/benmyers29/status/1632377162404712448?s=20
The assertion he is responding to is basically this: "developers are stupid because they tend to hold onto land during downturns, instead of building through them." On some level, I think I know where this line of thinking is coming from. It's the whole Warren Buffet philosophy of "being fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful."
But what it ignores is development feasibility. Developers typically rely heavily on the availability of debt financing. First you need land financing in order to acquire the land, and then, once you have your entitlements, condominium pre-sales and/or any other requirements in place, you move onto a construction loan (which often "takes out" your land loan).
Maybe you have deep enough pockets to fund everything with cash, but most of the time that is not the case. And so if these debt facilities are not available to you, then you are not building.
The other part of this equation is that, during downturns, it can be harder to forecast your future revenues. What can I sell/rent this space for, and how long will it take to absorb? These are difficult questions in the best of times, but they're even more difficult when you don't have a lot of market activity/comparables to point to.
All of this contributes to debt being less available, especially for smaller developers. It also makes new sites difficult to underwrite. Because as we have talked about many times before on this blog, land should be the residual claimant in a development pro forma. Revenue minus development costs equals how much you can afford to pay for land.
If the math doesn't work and if you can't get financing, it almost certainly doesn't matter how much "leading" you feel like doing. You're not building.
Like everyone else, I have started playing around with Midjourney to create AI-generated images. Here are two that I created last night using the prompt: "A silver Land Rover Defender driving through a snowstorm in the mountains of Utah."
Now, you can tell that these are AI-produced images, but it's still wildly impressive that something like this can be easily generated in a matter of a few seconds. And that's the thing about AI: it's easier to get, especially compared to crypto. It's immediately useful and it's immediately clear what this can and will disrupt.
Levis, for example, just announced that it will start using AI-generated photography in lieu of actual fashion photoshoots. This is obviously suboptimal for photographers, models, makeup artists, and so on, but a hell of a lot easier for Levis. I would also imagine that the same thing will happen to real estate renderings and many other things beyond just imagery.
Ben Myers and Steven Cameron recently speculated on their podcast -- Toronto Under Construction -- that AI could be used for reviewing development applications. Imagine how much this would speed up reviews and the delivery of new housing! So there are very good reasons for why the hype cycle has moved over to AI from crypto and NFTs.
https://twitter.com/punk6529/status/1639411208192139266?s=20
However, I'd like to go on the record saying that my gut tells me that this will only make what crypto offers even more important. Permissionless public databases (as opposed to databases controlled by individuals/companies) and the ability to demonstrate authenticity/ownership, feel like two important things to me in a world where computers are constantly generating a flood of new content and nobody knows what is "real" anymore.
It's certainly a lot less tangible than, "hey, check out this badass Defender driving through the snow." But I feel strongly that these two innovations will end up working together.
Like everyone else, I have started playing around with Midjourney to create AI-generated images. Here are two that I created last night using the prompt: "A silver Land Rover Defender driving through a snowstorm in the mountains of Utah."
Now, you can tell that these are AI-produced images, but it's still wildly impressive that something like this can be easily generated in a matter of a few seconds. And that's the thing about AI: it's easier to get, especially compared to crypto. It's immediately useful and it's immediately clear what this can and will disrupt.
Levis, for example, just announced that it will start using AI-generated photography in lieu of actual fashion photoshoots. This is obviously suboptimal for photographers, models, makeup artists, and so on, but a hell of a lot easier for Levis. I would also imagine that the same thing will happen to real estate renderings and many other things beyond just imagery.
Ben Myers and Steven Cameron recently speculated on their podcast -- Toronto Under Construction -- that AI could be used for reviewing development applications. Imagine how much this would speed up reviews and the delivery of new housing! So there are very good reasons for why the hype cycle has moved over to AI from crypto and NFTs.
https://twitter.com/punk6529/status/1639411208192139266?s=20
However, I'd like to go on the record saying that my gut tells me that this will only make what crypto offers even more important. Permissionless public databases (as opposed to databases controlled by individuals/companies) and the ability to demonstrate authenticity/ownership, feel like two important things to me in a world where computers are constantly generating a flood of new content and nobody knows what is "real" anymore.
It's certainly a lot less tangible than, "hey, check out this badass Defender driving through the snow." But I feel strongly that these two innovations will end up working together.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
