Subscribe
If you're building a purpose-built rental building, you spend nearly all of your money up front and then you start earning revenue (i.e. collecting rent). On the other hand, if you're building a condominium building in a market that generally relies on pre-sales for construction financing, which is the case here in Toronto, you spend a bit of your money up front, lock in (but not collect) most, if not all, of your project revenue, and then you spend the majority of your money.
(This is obviously a simplification and when I say "spend all of your money" I'm speaking on an unlevered gross basis and not based on equity in. But this nuance doesn't change the point of this post.)
I have written about the above difference before on the blog, but I think it's particularly relevant in today's cost environment. Looking at the construction cost chart that I posted a few days ago, it is clear that a lot of us, myself included, have never had to work and build in an environment like this.
In the past 30 some years, we have never had to deal with construction costs rising as quickly as they are right now. Though I recognize that things did also suck in the early 80s when we had high inflation and double-digit interest rates, and in the early 90s when the real estate sector was particularly hard hit.
In any event, what does this current environment mean for development projects? Well for one, and this is a big one, it means that spending a bit of your money up front and then locking in most of your revenue (i.e. pre-selling condominiums), can present a lot of risks if you don't have a good handle on how much it's going to cost you to finish the project. And the reality is that nobody has a crystal ball, especially in this kind of environment.
So in my humble opinion, I think you need to spend a bit more of your money up front. I think it makes sense to spend the time and money on solid working drawings and on running a tight construction procurement process -- all before you begin selling.
It used to be the case that many developers would start selling before they even had their zoning in place. That is far less common today (from what I can tell) for reasons like what I'm describing here. Of course, this means it's going to take you longer to get to market. And time equals more money. But it feels like a necessary move in this environment.
Photo by Matías Santana on Unsplash
I was having coffee with a developer friend of mine this morning and we got onto the topic of asking a lot of questions. We joked that that's what we do all day.
Development projects happen because of teams of very smart people all working together toward a common goal. It's a beautiful thing. And as a developer, there are certain expertises and competencies that you should have.
But for the most part, we usually sit in rooms as the least qualified person. We are not structural engineers. We are not geotechnical engineers. We are not architects (though I sometimes pose as a fake one). We are not planners. And we are not façade specialists, among many other things.
But we are the ones taking on most of the financial risk and trying to bring everything together. And what that means is that you end up asking a lot of questions. You collect information, you try and consider what could go wrong, you lean on past experiences, and then you make a decision -- often without perfect information or 100% certainty.
This is how projects move forward. You have to rely on others and you have to make decisions. Because not making a decision is even worse. It burns time, which is why too many cooks in the kitchen can be the kiss of death for development projects.
I'm sure the same thing can be said for many other things in life.
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1451744401923973121?s=20
It upsets me when I read things like this (click here if you can't see the embedded tweet above). I think it creates a false sense of a free lunch and ignores all of the nuances and complexities associated with inclusionary zoning.
IZ is an obligation to provide a certain number of affordable units in new housing developments. There's a lot of detail and debate around where this should apply, how much needs to be provided, and at what degree of affordability.
But at the end of the day, it's important to keep in mind that at meaningful levels of affordability, these IZ homes are going to be built at steep losses. More info on the economic impacts of IZ can be found here.
The simple math is that the costs to build these homes are going to be greater than the revenues that they bring in. Which is why developers aren't out building affordable housing everywhere. There's no margin.
In order to build, somebody or something needs to provide a subsidy so that this revenue-expense shortfall can be made up. How this works its way through the market is where I have tried to focus the discussion when writing about IZ. There are complexities. Some lessons from Portland, here.
But to just assume that these costs will get magically absorbed by housing developers, with no other knock-on effects or distortions to the market, is incorrect.
If you're building a purpose-built rental building, you spend nearly all of your money up front and then you start earning revenue (i.e. collecting rent). On the other hand, if you're building a condominium building in a market that generally relies on pre-sales for construction financing, which is the case here in Toronto, you spend a bit of your money up front, lock in (but not collect) most, if not all, of your project revenue, and then you spend the majority of your money.
(This is obviously a simplification and when I say "spend all of your money" I'm speaking on an unlevered gross basis and not based on equity in. But this nuance doesn't change the point of this post.)
I have written about the above difference before on the blog, but I think it's particularly relevant in today's cost environment. Looking at the construction cost chart that I posted a few days ago, it is clear that a lot of us, myself included, have never had to work and build in an environment like this.
In the past 30 some years, we have never had to deal with construction costs rising as quickly as they are right now. Though I recognize that things did also suck in the early 80s when we had high inflation and double-digit interest rates, and in the early 90s when the real estate sector was particularly hard hit.
In any event, what does this current environment mean for development projects? Well for one, and this is a big one, it means that spending a bit of your money up front and then locking in most of your revenue (i.e. pre-selling condominiums), can present a lot of risks if you don't have a good handle on how much it's going to cost you to finish the project. And the reality is that nobody has a crystal ball, especially in this kind of environment.
So in my humble opinion, I think you need to spend a bit more of your money up front. I think it makes sense to spend the time and money on solid working drawings and on running a tight construction procurement process -- all before you begin selling.
It used to be the case that many developers would start selling before they even had their zoning in place. That is far less common today (from what I can tell) for reasons like what I'm describing here. Of course, this means it's going to take you longer to get to market. And time equals more money. But it feels like a necessary move in this environment.
Photo by Matías Santana on Unsplash
I was having coffee with a developer friend of mine this morning and we got onto the topic of asking a lot of questions. We joked that that's what we do all day.
Development projects happen because of teams of very smart people all working together toward a common goal. It's a beautiful thing. And as a developer, there are certain expertises and competencies that you should have.
But for the most part, we usually sit in rooms as the least qualified person. We are not structural engineers. We are not geotechnical engineers. We are not architects (though I sometimes pose as a fake one). We are not planners. And we are not façade specialists, among many other things.
But we are the ones taking on most of the financial risk and trying to bring everything together. And what that means is that you end up asking a lot of questions. You collect information, you try and consider what could go wrong, you lean on past experiences, and then you make a decision -- often without perfect information or 100% certainty.
This is how projects move forward. You have to rely on others and you have to make decisions. Because not making a decision is even worse. It burns time, which is why too many cooks in the kitchen can be the kiss of death for development projects.
I'm sure the same thing can be said for many other things in life.
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1451744401923973121?s=20
It upsets me when I read things like this (click here if you can't see the embedded tweet above). I think it creates a false sense of a free lunch and ignores all of the nuances and complexities associated with inclusionary zoning.
IZ is an obligation to provide a certain number of affordable units in new housing developments. There's a lot of detail and debate around where this should apply, how much needs to be provided, and at what degree of affordability.
But at the end of the day, it's important to keep in mind that at meaningful levels of affordability, these IZ homes are going to be built at steep losses. More info on the economic impacts of IZ can be found here.
The simple math is that the costs to build these homes are going to be greater than the revenues that they bring in. Which is why developers aren't out building affordable housing everywhere. There's no margin.
In order to build, somebody or something needs to provide a subsidy so that this revenue-expense shortfall can be made up. How this works its way through the market is where I have tried to focus the discussion when writing about IZ. There are complexities. Some lessons from Portland, here.
But to just assume that these costs will get magically absorbed by housing developers, with no other knock-on effects or distortions to the market, is incorrect.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog