Howard Chai recently reported in the Globe and Mail on the number of "distressed" commercial real estate transactions that Canada has seen over the last few years:
2023: 119 transactions totalling $767 million
2024: 191 transactions totalling more than $1.5 billion
2025: 252 transactions totalling more than $1.42 billion
These numbers are from Altus Group and they, importantly, only include sales involving a court proceeding. They do not include properties sold at a loss because of financial distress or any other such scenarios. This means that the actual amount of "distress" in the market is certainly greater. We're all just holding on.
The hardest-hit asset class is, not surprisingly, development land. This makes sense because the value of development land is mostly binary right now. Either you can do something productive with it (in which case there's value) or you can't, and it's illiquid. Land is risky. It just doesn't seem that way when the market is hot.
The theme of the article is that the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers is cited as saying he thinks we will see the "emergence of a bottom" late this year or early into 2027. He must have read my annual predictions post in January, where I argued the same.
These periods of time always suck for everyone involved. But as is always the case in markets, the faster we deal with the pain, the faster we'll get to the other side. Failure is an essential part of capitalism. As many have said: "Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell."
Cover photo by Damian Kravchuk on Unsplash
Read through planning documents across North America and you're bound to find language that refers to low-rise residential neighbourhoods as "physically stable areas" where the "existing neighbourhood character" is paramount. But to be more precise, what this kind of language is actually saying is not that these neighbourhoods need to be broadly stable; it is saying that they just need to look more or less stable.
Here in Toronto, for example, it has been widely documented that many of our low-rise neighbourhoods are losing people. Household sizes are getting smaller, and houses that used to be subdivided are being returned to single-family use. A similar thing is happening in other cities like New York:
Bloomberg News recently reported that since 2004, at least 9,300 homes have been lost as a result of multi-family buildings getting "rolled up" into single-family homes. More recently, the city has even seen an increase in people combining two or more buildings into large urban mansions.
And while the total number of homes removed is relatively small for New York as a whole, it can be quite impactful to individual neighbourhoods. In the West Village, where there's a high concentration of rowhomes and townhouses, Bloomberg estimates that one out of every six small apartment buildings has been rolled up into a single-family home since 2004!
From a built form standpoint, you could say these are "physically stable" areas that are obediently adhering to their existing neighbourhood character. But under the hood and behind their street walls, they are clearly changing.
It is one of the great ironies of city building. People often fear new development because they worry it might disrupt the character of a neighbourhood. But preventing development does not guarantee stasis. In fact, we know that not building new housing actually increases the pressures felt on a city's existing housing stock, as people compete for a more fixed amount of supply.
The wealthy can always outbid the less wealthy on housing. So if you don't provide any new options, the wealthy will just buy up the existing stuff and turn it into what they want. Alternatively, you can build more housing and create a "moving chain" that frees up more existing housing for people of lower incomes.
Cover photo by Chanan Greenblatt on Unsplash
Map from Bloomberg
Last month, we talked about how even "luxury" housing can improve overall housing affordability in a market. In that post, we spoke about a recent study that looked at the downstream effects of a new condominium tower in Honolulu. Today, let's look at Switzerland.
I stumbled upon this working paper on Twitter. The authors are Lukas Hauck and Frédéric Kluser, both from the University of Bern. In it, they look at the country-wide effects of new residential housing supply in Switzerland and, more specifically, the "moving chain" that new supply produces.
Moving chains work generally as follows:
A household moves into a newly constructed home
Their previous home becomes vacant
Another household moves into this vacant unit, leaving their previous home vacant
And the process continues, until someone breaks the chain (which can happen by way of a new household being formed or someone moving in from out of the market)
The authors found that these moving chains are relatively short in Switzerland. Approximately 75% of them terminate within three migration rounds. But this doesn't mean that these chains aren't critical for the market.
Importantly, they found that every new market-rate unit typically results in 0.75 moves for households with below-median incomes. So, that is 75 moves for every 100 new homes constructed.
The reason why new supply ends up also benefiting lower-income households is because there's a clear income and rent gradient across the moving chain:
New housing (migration round 1) is typically priced at the highest end of the market. This makes sense because we know that development happens on the margin. But by migration rounds 2 and 3, median rents fall off noticeably, creating housing opportunities for other people.
New market-rate housing is sometimes criticized for only serving one segment of the market. But once again, we see evidence that it helps to ease overall housing pressures. There are other indirect benefits that shouldn't be ignored.
Cover photo by Henrique Ferreira on Unsplash
Chart from "Country-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains."