Over the years on this blog, we have spoken many times about what Pouyan Safapour, president of Devron Developments, wrote about in this recent Maclean's article: the method of pre-selling condominiums (which is what we customarily do in Toronto) biases the market toward investor buyers and smaller, more cost-effective suites.

Unlike end-user buyers, investors have generally viewed waiting three to five years for their condominium to be complete as a feature in recent years, rather than a bug. It has meant asset appreciation without having to carry or actually manage the property.

The pre-sale model works very well for a number of other reasons, too. Firstly, by pre-selling, developers minimize market risk for both themselves and the construction lender. Now you have contracted revenue to take out the construction loan at the end, as opposed to building on "spec" and hoping the market will be there, which may or may not be the case.

It's also an equity-efficient model for developers. Banks are able to offer higher LTVs because of the contracted revenue, and insured purchaser deposits can be used as a source of funds for the project, reducing the amount of required equity.

But it is certainly true that many, perhaps even most, end-users would prefer to buy when the building is complete. So how might we reorient the model to better cater to these homebuyers? This is especially relevant in today's market, where end-user buyers have overtaken investors.

In the current framework, there are a couple of things that can be done. Developers can just build smaller projects. This minimizes the window between pre-sale and completion. Another option is to segment the project between homes that will sell quickly upfront (and fulfill lender pre-sale requirements) and homes that are geared more toward end-users but won't sell until later. In this case, you're trying to sell enough to start construction, and you're building the balance on "spec."

Changing the entire financing model requires a lot more work. Removing pre-sales means more market risk and more required equity (unless these risks somehow get shifted by the government). If this happens, then there's a reasonable argument that we would see far fewer condominiums getting built, even if the ones that do get built are better suited to end-users.

There are developers in Toronto today that do not believe the investor pre-sale market is coming back, or at least not coming back anytime soon. If that ends up being the case, and I'm not sure it will be, then market participants, whoever they might be, will be forced to meet this demand in one of two ways: building more rental housing (which is by definition on "spec") or getting better at delivering end-user condominiums.

Cover photo by Fernando Strabuli on Unsplash

We talk a lot around here about the obstacles to missing middle housing and one of the key themes is that it's not a singular problem, it's a "many-things" problem. It's zoning, single-stair code requirements, elevators, environmental policy, servicing, and so much more. So we need to treat it like a multidisciplinary problem and collectively chip away at the barriers.

Today, let's focus on one important item on the list: servicing. My friend Brendan Charters from Eurodale forwarded me a letter that he submitted to City Council this week concerning Toronto Hydro policies. It does a great job outlining the issues, the impact on housing delivery, and the potential costs that new housing projects must bear. So I thought I would share it verbatim here on the blog.

The costs outlined in the letter below are just one example of the direct and indirect costs (time value of money) that get added onto every new home in the city, provided the new home even gets built. There are also too many instances of housing projects that never get off the ground because the costs are deemed too great right from the outset.

For those of you who are in the industry, or who just care about this issue, here's the agenda item. The City is hoping that the industry will use this opportunity to clearly articulate the challenges they have had with Toronto Hydro when it comes to multiplexes and housing development in general. Here's your opportunity. Write to the City and share Brendan's letter. This is how we work to solve our "many-things" problem.

Photo by Pavel Polansky on Unsplash

Here is a chart that we have all seen many times before. This one is from a recent New York Times opinion piece called, "America Needs to Build More Housing" and it shows the relationship between home prices (the price-to-income ratio) and houses built (average housing starts per 1,000 households). In this scatter chart, the four quadrants are as follows:

• Cities that don't build a lot of housing and are expensive (San Francisco)

• Cities that don't build a lot of housing but are still relatively affordable (Chicago)

• Cities that build a lot of housing and are affordable (Austin)

• Cities that build a lot of housing but are still relatively expensive (Hilton Head Island)

This last quadrant has the fewest number of data points and a number of the locations are resort or second-home destinations, which have their own unique market dynamics. Similarly, the lower-supply cities, like Chicago and Detroit, have managed to maintain some degree of affordability by virtue of the fact that their population and economic demand haven't grown as quickly as in other cities.

But generally speaking, the correlation is as one would expect: more homes equals lower prices. It is, however, worth pointing out that not all homes are created equal. The cost and time required to build a low-rise, wood-framed house in the suburbs is not the same as building a high-density, reinforced-concrete tower in the city.

Still, we know that all forms of supply ultimately improve affordability in a market. With this in mind, how might one describe Toronto today? We've been told we're in the midst of a housing crisis, and yet there are lots of available homes on the market, both to buy and rent. Indeed, it's a buyer's and tenant's market. So what's going on?

Well, it's important to keep in mind that a chart like this represents a long-term historical average and that building new housing generally takes a long time (too long, I might add). Right now, we could describe the Toronto housing market like the proverbial "pig in a python."

The market is in the midst of absorbing a huge influx of completed supply and, as our chart suggests, this is having a deflationary effect on home prices in the short term. However, once this pig gets digested, there's absolutely nothing next in the pipeline to digest, and according to basic economics, we know exactly what that will mean for the market.

Cover photo by Artem Labunsky on Unsplash

Chart via the New York Times