I like to think of real estate as a downstream industry. What I mean by this is that the demand for space — whether it be housing or office space — happens downstream from other underlying economic activities.
For example, if someone creates a successful business and then hires a bunch of new employees, at least two things happen. The company now needs to consume more office space, and the employees of this successful company will likely demand more housing. Maybe they're relocating for this new job, or maybe they just got a pay increase and now want to consume more housing.
Whatever the exact case, real estate is the tail of the dog, and the new and successful company is the dog itself. Sometimes real estate gets mistaken for the dog itself. Rising real estate values become a substitute (albeit a poor one) for genuine economic growth.
But this does nothing to help overall productivity and innovation. And eventually you'll need to find some bonafide dogs. That's why I think this recent op-ed (which was presented in partnership with Shopify) is an important one:
But nation-building isn’t only cranes and concrete. It’s also the builders who start companies and create new industries. If we want a prosperous future, Canada can’t just be a place that builds big things; it has to be a place that builds new things. A Founder Nation.
Our growth challenge isn’t just shovels in the ground. It’s whether new businesses are forming, whether founders have the tools and freedom to scale, and whether our economy is dynamic enough to let tomorrow’s builders outcompete yesterday’s incumbents.
I couldn't agree more. We need to build — in every sense of the word. Over-indexing on real estate alone is not sustainable long term. And I say this as a real estate developer who makes a living from monetizing space.
Development fees have ZERO impact on what a typical buyer is willing to spend on a home.
They only impact the price a builder needs to sell at to make a profit.
Urbanation just released its Q3-2025 condominium market survey results for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Last quarter, a total of 319 new condominium apartments were sold across the entire region. This is the lowest quarterly total since Q3-1990 and is 92% below the latest 10-year average for Q3 periods. It also places us on track for the worst sales year in about three and a half decades. But this isn't news to anyone in the industry. And I'll remind you all that, in my view, now is the time for contrarianism, not conformity.
Here's something I found interesting in the data, though, and it ties into the above quote tweet. The average prices for unsold condominiums in Q3 were as follows:
$1,315 psf for unsold pre-construction suites (i.e. projects in the pre-sale period)
$1,199 psf for unsold developer-owned suites (i.e. remaining inventory in built projects)
$867 psf for resales in recently completed buildings
Why do you think there's this gradient? The answer is that these are condominiums of different vintages and, therefore, of different cost structures. Developers generally price projects on a cost-plus basis — meaning if development charges go up (see above tweet), then developers have no choice but to raise home prices to cover their costs. And if the market isn't there at these new higher prices, well then too bad for developers. We don't get to build. The floor is the floor.
In economic terms, what is happening right now is that the marginal cost of producing new condominium homes exceeds the marginal benefit to home buyers (i.e. costs are greater than what the market is willing to pay for new condominium homes). And for this to change, one or both of the following adjustments will need to occur. The cost of building will need to come down and/or the price buyers are willing to pay for new homes will need to go up. Until then, Urbanation will continue to publish gnarly market updates.
But while the market works to find a new equilibrium, I do think it's disingenuous to try and detach the cost of building new homes from end-user prices (which is what the above quote tweet seems to do). Increasing the marginal cost of a good forces prices to rise. In turn, the quantity demanded falls because fewer people can afford it. And if the demand curve also shifts to the left, which is what happened starting in 2022, then the quantity demanded can even approach zero (see second chart).
Pretending we can heavily tax housing and not pay the price doesn’t help anyone looking for more affordable options.
My internet friend (and fellow Penn alum), Bobby Fijan, is a strong proponent of more family-friendly housing in urban centers. And by strong proponent, I mean that he is both building more family-friendly housing as a developer and publishing thoughtful research on the topic. His most recent project is this study, which surveyed more than 10,000 people, and looked at what it will take to build more urban homes for young families.
What he and his co-author Lyman Stone found is the following:
People who don't have enough space at home are less likely to have children.
Apartments are a growing share of new housing in the US, but they are becoming increasingly less family friendly.
Americans are willing to pay more in rent per square foot for the same amount of space if there are more bedrooms.
Developers are not properly accounting for the higher vacancy and turnover associated with smaller apartments (especially in the current market environment).
Cities could increase the number of family-friendly apartments if they did things like exempt them from FAR calculations, accelerate approvals/permitting, and so on.
This is a topic that I feel similarly about. I am an urbanist and I believe that cities are at their best when they provide for every generation and demographic segment. It's also not a new topic for cities like Toronto.
But I do think cities like Toronto and Vancouver are a bit unique. If you look at some of the floor plan examples in the report, you'll find one-bedroom apartments at 750 square feet and two-bedroom apartments at 1,100 square feet. Part of the thinking is that these floor plans could accommodate additional bedrooms in order to make them more family friendly (and it would be accretive to developers based on the above finding).
But by Toronto standards, these would be very generous apartments. At 750 sf, it is likely the apartment would already have 2 bedrooms and possibly even a den/office. The reason for this is that affordability has been strained for a long time in this city, and the market responded with shrinkflation. Every square foot has already been optimized.
So if we truly want to encourage more family-friendly apartments, I believe that we are going to need to change the cost structure underpinning the development of these homes. In other words, we need to make them cheaper to build so that more families can afford a bit more space. The way you start to do this is by doing some of the things listed in the last point above and by reducing added taxes and levies.