Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
A good friend of mine, who is also in the industry, once described real estate development as a three-legged stool. In order to develop, you really need three things: expertise, capital, and a site (i.e. land). This probably seems fairly obvious. I mean, you need to know what you're doing, you need the money to do it, and then you actually need a place to build. But as simple and as obvious as this may seem, there are barriers to entry. Real estate is a capital intensive industry. And despite what the general public seems to believe about the pockets of developers, most are raising outside capital.
The thing about this three-legged stool is that you don't necessarily need to have all of the legs at once, and in many cases you won't. If you have two of them in place, it's usually feasible to figure out and get the last one. For example, if you know what you're doing (expertise) and you have a site (owned or "under control"), then presumably you have a development pro forma that makes some economic sense. And with those things, you generally should be able to find the capital that you need to execute on your project.
I've also met people who have managed to build this three-legged stool starting with only one leg. They didn't have much development experience or capital connections, but they learned enough to figure out how to value development land. They then went out and started knocking on doors, eventually putting together a development assembly. They then took this assembly to developers (people with expertise) and the stool eventually got built. Starting with only one leg just means you're going to have to work harder to fill in the others.
A one or two-legged stool won't stay upright on its own. But hustle will hold it up temporarily while you figure out a creative way to attach the missing leg(s).
Photo by John Boatile on Unsplash
If you've bought land with the intention of developing it and you now think the value of that land has either gone up or down, there comes the question of what number you should plug into your development pro forma. Do you input what you paid for the land or do you input the current market value of the land? The former is probably more common than the latter, but in my view it's important to consider both scenarios.
If the value of the land has gone up, it means that you think you could turn around and sell it for that price today. And that would mean you would be making a profit without doing anymore work and without taking on any additional risk. That's an option that exists right here and right now (t = 0). What you want to get at in your pro forma, or at least understand, is the incremental profit margin from taking on the risk and brain damage of actually doing and completing the development project.
To do that, you need to consider the current market value of the land. That way you isolate your land margin from your build-out margin. The one problem with this approach is that the numbers may then tell you not to develop. In a hot market (which is not right now), it is not uncommon for land to get bid up beyond current fundamentals. There's always someone else who is willing to be more aggressive.
In this case, you may find that most of the development margin is in the land. And you will start thinking to yourself, "How can anyone afford to pay this much? It doesn't make sense." This doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't develop. But at least it gives you a better understanding of the risk and reward trade-off that you're about to take on. It might also tell you some things about the market.
If you're trying to figure out how to make housing more affordable, it should be fairly obvious that it's probably a good idea to actually understand the costs associated with building new housing. That is, more or less, the title of this recent series by Brookings about innovation in design and construction. The four-part series is based on the findings of a report that was written by Hannah Hoyt and published by Harvard's Joint Center of Housing Studies and NeighborWorks America.
Now, costs vary by geography. Each city has its own nuances when it comes to development. And this should not be construed as a silver bullet. But what they are trying to do is identify design and construction savings to help the overall equation. Part of their argument is that building typology matters. Build smaller -- hopefully out of wood -- and you can bring your hard costs down. The problem with this thinking is that the trend lines are moving in the opposite direction.
Here is a chart from the same Brookings article:
In 2000, about 23%, or almost a quarter, of all multifamily units completed in the US were in a building with fewer than 10 units. As of 2018, that number had dropped to somewhere around 5%. At the same time, the number of completed units in buildings with 50 or more units has gone from 14% in 2000 to about 61% in 2018. Things got a little wonky after the global financial crisis, but generally the trend lines are pretty clear.
Some of this likely has to do with our "return to cities." But I think the bigger part of this story is that development cost structures are pushing the market in this direction. For more on this topic, check out: Demystifying the development pro forma.
A good friend of mine, who is also in the industry, once described real estate development as a three-legged stool. In order to develop, you really need three things: expertise, capital, and a site (i.e. land). This probably seems fairly obvious. I mean, you need to know what you're doing, you need the money to do it, and then you actually need a place to build. But as simple and as obvious as this may seem, there are barriers to entry. Real estate is a capital intensive industry. And despite what the general public seems to believe about the pockets of developers, most are raising outside capital.
The thing about this three-legged stool is that you don't necessarily need to have all of the legs at once, and in many cases you won't. If you have two of them in place, it's usually feasible to figure out and get the last one. For example, if you know what you're doing (expertise) and you have a site (owned or "under control"), then presumably you have a development pro forma that makes some economic sense. And with those things, you generally should be able to find the capital that you need to execute on your project.
I've also met people who have managed to build this three-legged stool starting with only one leg. They didn't have much development experience or capital connections, but they learned enough to figure out how to value development land. They then went out and started knocking on doors, eventually putting together a development assembly. They then took this assembly to developers (people with expertise) and the stool eventually got built. Starting with only one leg just means you're going to have to work harder to fill in the others.
A one or two-legged stool won't stay upright on its own. But hustle will hold it up temporarily while you figure out a creative way to attach the missing leg(s).
Photo by John Boatile on Unsplash
If you've bought land with the intention of developing it and you now think the value of that land has either gone up or down, there comes the question of what number you should plug into your development pro forma. Do you input what you paid for the land or do you input the current market value of the land? The former is probably more common than the latter, but in my view it's important to consider both scenarios.
If the value of the land has gone up, it means that you think you could turn around and sell it for that price today. And that would mean you would be making a profit without doing anymore work and without taking on any additional risk. That's an option that exists right here and right now (t = 0). What you want to get at in your pro forma, or at least understand, is the incremental profit margin from taking on the risk and brain damage of actually doing and completing the development project.
To do that, you need to consider the current market value of the land. That way you isolate your land margin from your build-out margin. The one problem with this approach is that the numbers may then tell you not to develop. In a hot market (which is not right now), it is not uncommon for land to get bid up beyond current fundamentals. There's always someone else who is willing to be more aggressive.
In this case, you may find that most of the development margin is in the land. And you will start thinking to yourself, "How can anyone afford to pay this much? It doesn't make sense." This doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't develop. But at least it gives you a better understanding of the risk and reward trade-off that you're about to take on. It might also tell you some things about the market.
If you're trying to figure out how to make housing more affordable, it should be fairly obvious that it's probably a good idea to actually understand the costs associated with building new housing. That is, more or less, the title of this recent series by Brookings about innovation in design and construction. The four-part series is based on the findings of a report that was written by Hannah Hoyt and published by Harvard's Joint Center of Housing Studies and NeighborWorks America.
Now, costs vary by geography. Each city has its own nuances when it comes to development. And this should not be construed as a silver bullet. But what they are trying to do is identify design and construction savings to help the overall equation. Part of their argument is that building typology matters. Build smaller -- hopefully out of wood -- and you can bring your hard costs down. The problem with this thinking is that the trend lines are moving in the opposite direction.
Here is a chart from the same Brookings article:
In 2000, about 23%, or almost a quarter, of all multifamily units completed in the US were in a building with fewer than 10 units. As of 2018, that number had dropped to somewhere around 5%. At the same time, the number of completed units in buildings with 50 or more units has gone from 14% in 2000 to about 61% in 2018. Things got a little wonky after the global financial crisis, but generally the trend lines are pretty clear.
Some of this likely has to do with our "return to cities." But I think the bigger part of this story is that development cost structures are pushing the market in this direction. For more on this topic, check out: Demystifying the development pro forma.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog