I’ve been thinking a lot lately about condominium governance and how things might be improved.
If you own a condominium, you pay a monthly maintenance fee. Let’s say, for example, you own a 833 square foot condo and your maintenance fee is $500 per month. That works out to be $0.60 per square foot.
For a lot of people, this fee probably feels like a bit of a black hole. The money goes out every month and that’s the end of it.
But as I explained here, a portion of that fee goes into the condo’s reserve fund to cover future capital expenditures. This is basically an investment you are making for the future benefit of the building.
As an example, if you’re paying $500 per month, somewhere around 25% could be going towards your condo corporation’s reserve fund. That’s $125 per month. $1,500 per year. $7,500 over a 5 year period. And $15,000 over a 10 year period.
Now this is an investment that you’re obliged to make, but one that you might not be around to directly benefit from if you decide to sell before capital expenditures are made using the money you’ve invested.
Of course, if you’re a savvy buyer, you’re going to scrutinize the reserve fund and the corporation’s overall financials before you buy into a building. And sometimes the unit valuations do get deeply depressed by out of control maintenance fees and/or special assessments. So you could maybe argue (as an owner) that your reserve fund investment ends up getting recaptured in an eventual sale.
But what I wonder is to what extent a properly funded reserve gets accurately reflected in the valuation of the individual units. I suspect not that well. And as far as I know, there isn’t great data on this metric. (If you know of anything, please share it in the comments.)
It’s certainly important information to have and consider. Again, when you buy a condo unit you’re not only buying the unit itself, you’re also buying the future investments (and liabilities) that others have left before you.
So what I really want to know: Why aren’t reserve fund balances and building studies made publicly available? This is not easy information to get today.
But imagine what would happen if the market had full transparency. Imagine if you could see a map of every condo building in your city and sort by age and reserve fund balance. In theory, unit pricing would become more accurate. But even more than that, there would be significant opportunities for collective intelligence.
Now all of a sudden buildings would be able to benchmark themselves against other buildings to see if their reserve fund is sufficient, as well as learn from other buildings with respect to their history of capital expenditures. It would also hold the building’s management more accountable and allow owners to easily see if the contracts in place are competitive with the overall market.
I know that a lot of people get nervous when it comes to sharing information like this. I mean, what would happen if your building is underfunded relative to its peers? Would that pull down property values? It certainly could. But if you’re underfunded and you get stuck with a special assessment in 5 years, then your property values are going to drop regardless.
So I would love to see a lot more condo information made available to the public for free. In my view the benefits outweigh the potential negatives, particularly if this were to be done at scale. Condo corporations are also non-profit entities, so it’s not as if their balance sheets and income statements are filled with sensitive trade secrets.
But what do you think? Would you feel comfortable if your condo’s reserve fund balance was made available online to the public? Do you even know off the top of your head what the balance is for your own building? I would be curious to know.
We are all selfish bastards when it comes to sharing road space and public space.
When we drive, we complain about pedestrians jumping out in front of us, crazy cyclists who get in our way, and under-utilized bike lanes that are taking away valuable driving space and creating traffic jams.
When we take surface transit (such as buses and streetcars), we want all the cars out of the way so that we can move more efficiently. And we complain about drivers who don’t stop to let us off and on when the streetcar doors open. (Toronto specific reference.)
When we cycle, we complain about cars parked in the bike lanes, people who don’t look before changing lanes or opening their car doors, and drivers who honk at you because they just want you off the road and onto the sidewalk.
And when we walk, we complain about cyclists who ride on the sidewalk (they should be on the road!), cars that don’t stop to let us go, and slow walking groups who linearly block the entire sidewalk so you can’t pass.
We are never happy. And we automatically assume that we could do it better. (I know I’m guilty of this.)
But here are a few things to consider the next time you’re flipping the bird to someone on the streets. Here are a few things that we do know about urban mobility.
There is an unprecedented number of condominiums in the development pipeline right now in Toronto. For argument’s sake, let’s assume 75,000 condominium suites – many of which will be built in central areas of the city.
At a parking ratio of 0.6 stalls per unit, which isn’t an unreasonable assumption today, that’s 45,000 new parking spots and potentially 45,000 new cars in the city.
If you think that 45,000 new cars will be able to get fully absorbed into the core and somehow move around in an unfettered way, then I believe you are mistaken.
If you think that there’s something that can be done to magically expand road capacity to handle all of these additional cars in the city, then I believe you are mistaken.
And if you think that adding a bike lane is the only reason you are currently stuck in traffic, then I believe you are missing the bigger picture.
Over a decade ago, we made a decision in this region to encourage building up, instead of building out. And along with that decision came a necessary rethink of how we get around. That transition is what we are living through right now.
The other thing we know is that the 4 modes of mobility that I started this post with are ordered from least sustainable to most sustainable.
Electric self-driving vehicles will reduce the impacts of driving, but it will also transform it into something that feels more like transit and less like the driving we know today. That will be a very good thing.
But I’m not yet convinced that it will solve all of our problems. To do that I think we will need to adopt a much more balanced and unselfish view of what it takes to move around a city. That, of course, isn’t always easy.
Real estate is a local business. And this weekend in Philadelphia really reminded me of that.
Here’s what I mean.
The real estate story in Toronto is condos. We’re buildings lots and lots of condos. When my friend from Chicago recently visited Toronto for the first time, he told me that it feels very similar to Chicago, except that we have modern glass condo towers going up everywhere and they don’t. That’s our story right now.
Low-rise housing in Toronto is becoming increasingly unaffordable (the average price of a detached home is well north of $1M) and so high-rise condos are now what many people can afford. When young people in Toronto talk about buying their first place, that now usually means a condo.
But that’s not the story in Philadelphia.
In Philadelphia, you can buy a 1,600 square foot, 2 storey, 2 bedroom rowhouse in a respectable neighborhood for sub US$400,000. And in speaking with my friends in Philly this weekend, that’s what young people are buying.
This doesn’t mean that Philadelphia isn’t building new high-rise condos and apartments. It is. Obviously nowhere near as many as Toronto. But it is building. Far more than when I lived there before the Great Recession.
However, the condo market is typically more upmarket. The target market isn’t so much first time buyers and the mass market; it’s more people who want full floor apartments in Rittenhouse Square. (I’m exaggerating only slightly.)
Philadelphia is also building more rental towers than condo towers. (Rental has only recently become fashionable again in Toronto.)
I’m guessing that a lot of this has to do with the fact that Philadelphia draws in a lot of transient students and academics each year. In fact, the most noticeably changed area from when I lived in Philly was University City. That’s the area that houses the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University.
So there seems to be strong demand for new rental housing in the city. I’m told vacancies are very low. But when it comes time to buy, young people don’t look to condos like they do in Toronto. They are looking mostly to rowhouses.
This is interesting to me because it’s the exact opposite of Toronto. In Toronto, low-rise is expensive and so lots more people are buying high-rise. In Philadelphia, high-rise is expensive and so people are buying low-rise.
I guess that’s why they say real estate is a local business. What works in one city may not work in another.