Last night I watched CBC’s the Condo Game documentary. This is what it’s about:

"The Condo Game examines the forces at play behind the fastest moving condo market in North America – Toronto – and discovers that the glittering glass hides a sea of troubles."

If you haven’t seen it, you can watch it here at CBC’s Doc Zone. It’s about 45 minutes long.

Generally, I found the piece to be overly sensationalized. (If you watched it and it left you worried about condos, contact me. I’d love to hear from you.) However, that’s not to say that the documentary doesn’t raise some important points. One that I absolutely think is worth discussing is the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

Many developers like “the board” because it provides recourse. If the city fails to take action on a development application within 180 days, developers have the right to appeal to the board.

While I do think it’s critical to have some sort of mechanism to unlock a gridlocked planning process, I also think that it’s fundamentally problematic to give the province ultimate decision making power over municipal planning decisions.

Real estate development is very much a local business and these decisions should be happening at the local level. However, with the OMB looming overhead, it has left municipalities disempowered. “We’ll deal with it at the board” always remains an option. 

But what if there wasn’t a board? What if municipalities and developers had to figure out a solution between the two of them? We’d certainly end up with less wasted money (on expensive lawyers), but I think we’d also end up with better design and planning outcomes.

To do this though, the city needs to get their act together with respect to zoning. Almost nothing is zoned for what developers end up building. But I think this largely has to do with the fact that the city knows any dissenting decision will just get appealed. Again, they’re disempowered.

So I think it’s time we empowered cities. This may seem scary to some developers at first, but there’s a lot to be gained.

One of my favorite development projects going up in Toronto right now is the Pier 27 complex at the base of Yonge Street.

What I love about it is that it’s trying something different. The two sky bridges that sit atop the two phases—currently under construction—are going to create a remarkable new focal point along the waterfront. It’s not just another condo.

And as I watch the buildings go up, I’ve also been impressed by the materials used on the project. In particular the curtain wall (glazing) system used on the eastern most buildings. It’s a clear glass installation with white accent pieces. It’s beautiful. Here are a few photos.

But as much as I love this project, it’s been slow moving. This project, like many others in the city, has been subject to a number of delays. They went to market in 2006-2007 and occupancy isn’t expected until next year—a good 7 years later.

But more than the issue of time, my real concern is the lack of transparency. Why was it delayed? Were sales slow? Were there dewatering issues being on reclaimed land along the waterfront? Was the soil contaminated? As a consumer, it’s frustrating being in the dark.

I do, however, acknowledge that this is a larger issue facing the real estate industry. We’re certainly not known for radical transparency. We’re a closed and insular industry. But over time I do believe that will change. It’s inevitable. And the best thing you can do today—as an organization or as an individual—is to embrace it.

Full disclosure: I have a vested interest in this project and I’m currently having a fight with the developer over a small amendment I would like to make to the agreement of purchase and sale. They have been unwilling to cooperate.

I just read an interesting chapter from Tim Smith’s book, "Pricing Strategy: Setting Price Levels, Managing Price Discounts and Establishing Price Structures." It’s Chapter 5: Psychological Influences on Price Sensitivity.

The chapter covers a number of pricing phenomenons, such as why prices ending in .99 tend to convey a discount and why whole prices ending in 0 tend to speak more to quality. It’s for this reason that art work is typically priced using simple round numbers.

But one of most interesting theories from the chapter is that of Prospect Theory. Not only because of its impact on pricing strategies, but because, I think, it also applies to the real estate development business.

Prospect Theory essentially describes the way people make decisions in the face of uncertainty. The two big takeaways for me are (1) that potential losses carry more weight than potential gains and (2) that both losses and gains experience diminishing returns.

What this effectively means is that people, when faced with risk, tend to focus more on the negatives, and the potential losses, than on the positives. This means that the gains just can’t match the losses, they have to be significantly greater if you’re going to inspire action (a purchasing decision, a change in behaviour, or whatever).

The second point basically means that these gains and losses become muted after a certain point. If you hit someone with enough of either, eventually they reach a point where they become desensitized in a way. Each additional amount of gain or loss produces less and less impact.

Besides the obvious point of making sure that your product or service results in lots of gain for your customer, there are a couple of other things you can do to respond to this theory.

The first is to “bundle losses” and “unbundle gains”. In other words, hit people with all the losses at once and then spread out the gains. What this does is maximize the psychological perception of gains and minimize the perception of losses because, remember, after a while people start to discount the losses.

The other thing you can do is transfer losses, which is often just the cost itself, from direct to indirect. Big box stores, as an example, are great at this. They offer low prices (a direct cost) in exchange for greater indirect costs: higher transportation costs to the user, greater environmental impact, and so on. Studies show that people feel direct costs much more than indirect costs.

There are a bunch of things you can do based on this theory, but again, one of the most fascinating things for me was how it also applies to the real estate industry. There’s a well known acronym in the industry called NIMBY. It stands for Not In My Back Yard, and it’s used pejoratively to refer to people who oppose development in their community.

However, if you look at NIMBY’ism through the lens of Prospect Theory, you realize that it’s almost an innate human reaction. Development and construction is disruptive and the end result is change in somebody’s community. And I suspect that most residents view it as a risky and uncertain situation. Therefore, it’s no wonder that they’re first reaction is opposition. They’re weighing the potential losses more than the potential gains.

So maybe we developers just need to apply a little Prospect Theory. We need to get better at producing and communicating gains.