In this part of the world, the people who take on the risk of building and who orchestrate the creation of new buildings are typically called real estate developers. That's what I call myself. But they can go by different names depending on where you are in the world and who you are asking.
For example, when a developer is raising money for a project, another term you will often hear is "sponsor." This emphasizes their role as the financial steward of the capital they are raising, as opposed to their operational expertise as a developer/builder. But in practice, they refer to the same thing. The audience has just changed.
In French, real estate developers are typically called something else: promoteurs immobiliers. This literally translates into "real estate promoter," and it speaks to one of the primary functions of developers, which is to initiate, sell, and generally push a project forward. So this is maybe a more accurate term.
The things being developed and promoted can also take on different names. I use the word "project" to describe a new building. Seth Godin has written a lot about this term, and he differentiates it from tasks: "Important work is project work." Meaning, it contributes to something bigger. So I like to use this term for almost everything I work on.
But in British English, it is common for property developers to use something else: "scheme." You'll hear things like, "our scheme contains 250 apartment homes with retail at grade." This word has always stood out to me as odd because I see it as having negative connotations. When someone is scheming, they're up to no good. Or maybe it's just because I'm not British.
Whatever your view, if we combine the French and the British terminology, we arrive at someone who promotes schemes for a living. Hmm. I'll likely stick to "developing projects," but I think the semantics are interesting. Like it or not, it says something about how development functions as an industry, and the skills necessary to participate in it.
Cover photo by aboodi vesakaran on Unsplash
The vast majority of new purpose-built rental housing in Canada relies on CMHC-insured loans to make them financially feasible. In 2024, CMHC estimated that their construction financing programs backed an estimated 88% of new rental starts across the country.
But anyone in the industry will tell you that the terms in which these loans are made available to developers are constantly changing. And I think it's pretty clear that many of the changes being made are intended to push, maybe force, developers into building some percentage of affordable homes as part of their projects.
At the political narrative level, this makes sense: Canada needs more affordable housing. But it's important to remember that homes pegged to below-market rents are not financially feasible to build on their own. So, unless equivalent subsidies are being somehow provided, the remaining market-rate homes will be forced to shoulder the additional costs.
We talk about this a lot on the blog (see inclusionary zoning posts), and I don't see it as an equitable solution. But there's also the problem of it further choking off new housing supply. And my sense is that that's exactly what is happening. It's only getting harder to underwrite new rental housing — certainly in cities like Toronto.
This will have the opposite effect on overall affordability. It also increases the probability that my supply predictions will prove roughly correct. I can't see a world where new rental supply is able to step up and fill the gap being left by new condominiums, a large portion of which was serving as new rental housing.
Toronto is on a path toward a severe housing shortage, and it's very hard for the private sector to do much about it in the current market environment. When that will change remains to be seen.
I recently started reading Marginal Revolution. This recent post, called "Illegal Immigrants Didn't Break the Housing Market; Bad Policy Did," covers many of the things that we talk about on this blog:
If “fixing” housing scarcity means blaming whichever group is politically convenient, you end up cycling through targets: illegal immigrants first, then legal immigrants (as Canada has done), then the children of immigrants, then wealthy buyers, then racial or religious minorities. Indeed, one wonders if the blame is the goal.
If you actually want to solve the problem of housing scarcity, stop the scapegoating and start supporting the disliked people who are actually working to reduce scarcity: the developers. Loosen zoning and cut the rules that choke what can be built. Redirect political energy away from trying to demolish imagined enemies and instead build, baby, build.
As a developer, I naturally chose the most self-serving excerpt to quote, but that doesn't mean that what Alex Tabarrok wrote is incorrect. Blame is, of course, the goal. Such is the reality of politics. Here's another excerpt, this one from one of Howard Mark's investing memos:
I've always gotten a kick out of oxymorons — phrases that are internally contradictory — such as "jumbo shrimp" and "common sense." I'll add "political reality" to the list. The world of politics has its own, altered reality, in which economic reality often seems not to impinge. No choices need to be made: candidates can promise it all. And there are no consequences. If something might have negative consequences in the real world, politicians seem to feel free to ignore them.
This is why immigrants are blamed, foreign buyers are banned, rent freezes are proposed (counterproductive), and we continue to do very little to
In this part of the world, the people who take on the risk of building and who orchestrate the creation of new buildings are typically called real estate developers. That's what I call myself. But they can go by different names depending on where you are in the world and who you are asking.
For example, when a developer is raising money for a project, another term you will often hear is "sponsor." This emphasizes their role as the financial steward of the capital they are raising, as opposed to their operational expertise as a developer/builder. But in practice, they refer to the same thing. The audience has just changed.
In French, real estate developers are typically called something else: promoteurs immobiliers. This literally translates into "real estate promoter," and it speaks to one of the primary functions of developers, which is to initiate, sell, and generally push a project forward. So this is maybe a more accurate term.
The things being developed and promoted can also take on different names. I use the word "project" to describe a new building. Seth Godin has written a lot about this term, and he differentiates it from tasks: "Important work is project work." Meaning, it contributes to something bigger. So I like to use this term for almost everything I work on.
But in British English, it is common for property developers to use something else: "scheme." You'll hear things like, "our scheme contains 250 apartment homes with retail at grade." This word has always stood out to me as odd because I see it as having negative connotations. When someone is scheming, they're up to no good. Or maybe it's just because I'm not British.
Whatever your view, if we combine the French and the British terminology, we arrive at someone who promotes schemes for a living. Hmm. I'll likely stick to "developing projects," but I think the semantics are interesting. Like it or not, it says something about how development functions as an industry, and the skills necessary to participate in it.
Cover photo by aboodi vesakaran on Unsplash
The vast majority of new purpose-built rental housing in Canada relies on CMHC-insured loans to make them financially feasible. In 2024, CMHC estimated that their construction financing programs backed an estimated 88% of new rental starts across the country.
But anyone in the industry will tell you that the terms in which these loans are made available to developers are constantly changing. And I think it's pretty clear that many of the changes being made are intended to push, maybe force, developers into building some percentage of affordable homes as part of their projects.
At the political narrative level, this makes sense: Canada needs more affordable housing. But it's important to remember that homes pegged to below-market rents are not financially feasible to build on their own. So, unless equivalent subsidies are being somehow provided, the remaining market-rate homes will be forced to shoulder the additional costs.
We talk about this a lot on the blog (see inclusionary zoning posts), and I don't see it as an equitable solution. But there's also the problem of it further choking off new housing supply. And my sense is that that's exactly what is happening. It's only getting harder to underwrite new rental housing — certainly in cities like Toronto.
This will have the opposite effect on overall affordability. It also increases the probability that my supply predictions will prove roughly correct. I can't see a world where new rental supply is able to step up and fill the gap being left by new condominiums, a large portion of which was serving as new rental housing.
Toronto is on a path toward a severe housing shortage, and it's very hard for the private sector to do much about it in the current market environment. When that will change remains to be seen.
I recently started reading Marginal Revolution. This recent post, called "Illegal Immigrants Didn't Break the Housing Market; Bad Policy Did," covers many of the things that we talk about on this blog:
If “fixing” housing scarcity means blaming whichever group is politically convenient, you end up cycling through targets: illegal immigrants first, then legal immigrants (as Canada has done), then the children of immigrants, then wealthy buyers, then racial or religious minorities. Indeed, one wonders if the blame is the goal.
If you actually want to solve the problem of housing scarcity, stop the scapegoating and start supporting the disliked people who are actually working to reduce scarcity: the developers. Loosen zoning and cut the rules that choke what can be built. Redirect political energy away from trying to demolish imagined enemies and instead build, baby, build.
As a developer, I naturally chose the most self-serving excerpt to quote, but that doesn't mean that what Alex Tabarrok wrote is incorrect. Blame is, of course, the goal. Such is the reality of politics. Here's another excerpt, this one from one of Howard Mark's investing memos:
I've always gotten a kick out of oxymorons — phrases that are internally contradictory — such as "jumbo shrimp" and "common sense." I'll add "political reality" to the list. The world of politics has its own, altered reality, in which economic reality often seems not to impinge. No choices need to be made: candidates can promise it all. And there are no consequences. If something might have negative consequences in the real world, politicians seem to feel free to ignore them.
This is why immigrants are blamed, foreign buyers are banned, rent freezes are proposed (counterproductive), and we continue to do very little to
Cover photo by Darren Richardson on Unsplash
Meanwhile, our problems persist.
I woke up this morning to an email from one of our partners with a link to this article talking about a three-storey, 10-unit housing project (plus garden suite) that was just refused by the Committee of Adjustment here in Toronto. It's five minutes from a major subway station. Why?
Because it's always easier to blame someone else.
Cover photo by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash
Cover photo by Darren Richardson on Unsplash
Meanwhile, our problems persist.
I woke up this morning to an email from one of our partners with a link to this article talking about a three-storey, 10-unit housing project (plus garden suite) that was just refused by the Committee of Adjustment here in Toronto. It's five minutes from a major subway station. Why?
Because it's always easier to blame someone else.
Cover photo by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
