Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
This is an interesting story about New Yorkers starting to seek out larger homes. Last month, Manhattan saw 140 purchase agreements signed for homes priced at $4 million or more. In the last week of February alone, 40 contracts were signed, which is apparently a weekly record for this price point that hasn’t been seen since August 2016.
What’s also interesting is that, in some of these cases, we’re talking about buyers who bought preconstruction and then went back to the developer to swap for a larger apartment. Developer Scott Avram is quoted in the above article saying that 10 buyers have “upgraded their contracts” at 130 William (David Adjaye project) over the last six months.
As we’ve talked about before, this is likely happening for a bunch of reasons. People have been working from home and want more space. Interest rates are low. And New York saw some softening in prices and now people are jumping back in to seize on those opportunities. At the same time, it is yet another example of people going long on dense urban living.
Last month I wrote a post introducing the One Delisle video series. Well, in case you missed it, the next two episodes in the series are now out, which you can watch over here. My personal favorite (so far) is episode two. It’s about city building at Yonge & St. Clair and a goal that Slate set for itself to do “one cool thing each year.” That thing has ranged from murals to streetscape improvements, and has included work from artists such as birdO (aka Jerry Rugg). If you aren’t familiar with his work, have a look over here.
The city of Los Angeles has taken an interesting approach to accessory dwelling units (what we generally call laneway or garden suites here in Toronto). In an effort to streamline the approvals process and bolster the supply of housing in the city, they’ve gone out and pre-approved a series of “standard plans” that you can quickly implement on your property. The idea here is that all of their approved plans have already been checked for compliance with the various building codes. So those reviews don’t need to happen before a permit can be issued (though the building department would still need to review any site-specific conditions).
What that means is that if you’re in the market for, say, a one-storey, one-bedroom ADU at around 450 sf, you can simply scroll through their list and find the one you like the most. Here is one that fits this criteria by Design, Bitches (I just wanted to mention this firm name). The potential downside of this approach is that it could encourage less architectural experimentation. On the flipside, many of their approved designs are really nice and so maybe it’s a boon for those who are lacking in good taste. Either way, if you want to encourage more of something, the way to do that is to reduce friction.
To start to give you a sense of how meaningful this could become, the city of Los Angeles received 1,980 applications for ADU construction back in 2017. This is the year in which the state changed its regulations so that ADUs were no longer prohibited in some municipalities (I don’t know all of the specifics truthfully). Last year, LA saw 5,374 applications and I suspect the number will be even higher this year. Should other cities look at pre-approving certain designs? And could this be an approach used for even larger building typologies? Speed is good.
The sentiment around downtown/urban condos has completely changed over the last month or so. This is happening in Toronto and, from what I hear, it’s happening in many other cities as well. Carolyn Ireland published an article in the Globe and Mail today called, “For downtown Toronto condos, the worm has turned.”
But I can also speak to what we (and our colleagues in the industry) are seeing on the ground. A sense of urgency has returned. Prices are starting to push upward. And people are buying. The last few weeks have also seen some very successful condo launches in the city including 8 Wellesley by CentreCourt Developments. I can’t remember if they sold out in 7 minutes or 7.5 minutes.
None of this is necessarily surprising. Interest rates are low. The US is doing a good job at vaccinating its people. Single-family home prices have exploded over the last year (pushing buyers toward condos). And there seems to be an emerging view that the second half of this year is going to be pretty good. (This was my view at the beginning of the year and stand behind that position.)
Today was a beautiful spring-like day in Toronto. I was out for a site visit this morning and the sidewalks were filled with people milling about and enjoying the sunshine. City life isn’t going anywhere my friends. Long live the city.
It’s hard for countless reasons, but one reason in particular is that it can be difficult to please everyone. Take parking, for example. This is often a primary concern when you’re trying to develop something new. Too little parking and people might be concerned that cars will start flooding the surrounding streets in search of a spot. Too much parking and people might be concerned about traffic congestion. So it can often feel like you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
I thought of this as I was reading through Alex Bozikovic’s recent opinion piece in the Globe and Mail called, “Yes, in my backyard: How urban planning must shift to meet our postpandemic challenges.” In it, he mentions a small missing middle-type infill project at 225 Brunswick Avenue here in Toronto. A century-old office building located in a residential neighborhood, a small developer has been working (with Suulin Architects) since 2018 to convert it into seven apartments.
Here are a few photos:
This is the kind of infill housing that planning staff and many councillors are trying to encourage across the city. And yet, the year is 2021. This developer is on year three in a process that will, maybe, deliver a total of seven new rental homes. There are also many other examples that we can point to in the city that have faced similar challenges, like this one here on Gerrard Street East. While not nearly as interesting architecturally speaking, it would have delivered 10 new homes proximate to transit. Maybe that will still happen. I can’t say for sure.
I’m not going to get into the specifics of any one proposal, but two things are clear to me: (1) Our city, and many other cities around the world, have a need for more missing middle-type infill housing and (2) our system is greatly flawed if it takes years and years to ultimately green light the delivery of only a half dozen or so new homes.
Time equals money. And when we make the process this difficult it means that many developers aren’t going to bother (because the math probably doesn’t work) and that the ones who are successful will need to absorb a bunch of unnecessary costs in the end pricing/rents of their homes (i.e. make the homes more expensive than they need to be).
225 Brunswick is exactly the kind of project that I would love to work on: a small-scale adaptive reuse project where design is clearly a priority. But with a 3-4 year entitlement timeline (perhaps longer?), it’s simply not worth it (though I do commend the efforts of the project team). I’m sure many others feel the same way that I do and that’s unfortunate when you’re trying to build a more vibrant, inclusive, and competitive global city.
Today I am excited to share the first episode in a new film series about One Delisle and the surrounding neighborhood of Yonge and St. Clair in midtown Toronto. Created for Slate Asset Management by the award-winning UK filmmakers, Raspberry and Jam, the series is about telling the story of how Studio Gang’s first ever project in Canada came to be. (Hint: It started with a neighborhood and not with an individual building.) Episode one is called “A Renaissance at Yonge and St. Clair” and you can view it over at onedelisle.com. Stay tuned for episode two and for the upcoming launch of One Delisle this spring.
I was speaking with a writer from the Globe & Mail today about the future of office. We were half talking about a new AAA strata office building — called Capital Point — that we (Slate) are in the midst of launching in the Metrotown neighborhood of Burnaby, BC. And we were half talking about whether or not we’re all going to return to offices.
This is one of the great debates of the pandemic but, as I mentioned in my 2021 predictions post, I think it’s overblown. The longer I work from home and spend my entire day on video calls (only to start actual work in the evening), the more I become convinced that this is a suboptimal arrangement for productivity, collaboration, personal motivation, employee morale, and talent retention (among many other things).
We have complete conviction around great offices in the right locations. That’s why Amazon and whoever else continue to build. They’re rightly looking past this period of dislocation (12-24 months of suck). Again, this is not to say that there won’t be some changes and that certain pre-existing trends haven’t been accelerated, because they have been. But I believe that humans will continue to cluster for work.
In fact, it’s hard to disentangle cities and offices. Cities are labor markets. It’s where agglomeration economies take hold and where people come to improve their socioeconomic standing in the world (as well as meet people and have fun). To say that we no longer need to come together in person for work is to say, in a way, that we no longer need cities. We can all decentralize.
That is not a bet that I am prepared to make.
For more information about Capital Point and to register for the project, click here.
There are many development narratives that I don’t quite understand. (I’m thinking of Toronto, but you can probably replace Toronto with any number of global cities for this discussion.) One is the belief that our transit network is full and so no new development should be allowed in certain locations, next to certain transit stations. The thrust of this argument is that additional transit capacity must be added before any new development is allowed to occur. This might sound logical, except it ignores the fact that the need for new housing doesn’t magically disappear because subway cars are thought to be too busy during the morning rush.
Transit systems are also a network, and so does this mean that no more development should be allowed to happen anywhere in the city/region? Or is the goal to simply move development off of higher order transit and into lower-density areas so that the future residents in these new buildings can either take buses to the transit stations that were previously deemed to be at capacity or drive their cars everywhere? (Our highways have excess capacity during the morning rush, right?)
The second narrative that I find perplexing is that new developments don’t give back in any way. Above is a chart showing residential development charges in the City of Toronto, as of November 1, 2020. This chart outlines the fees that every developer must pay when building new residential, though it is important to keep in mind that there are many other government fees and charges that form part of almost every new development. These are things like parkland dedication and separately negotiated community benefits. But for the purposes of this post, let’s just focus on development charges (aka impact fees).
Assume you’re building a 400 unit apartment building, consisting of 240 one bedroom suites (60%) and 160 two and three bedroom suites (40%). Based on the above chart, your development charge bill would be:
240 one bedroom suites x $33,358 per unit = $8,005,920
160 two and three bedroom suites x $51,103 per unit = $8,176,480
For a total of $16,182,400.
But it’s important to keep in mind that these are the rates as of November 1, 2020. They will almost certainly go up by the time these charges become payable for your 400 unit apartment building. By how much you ask? Well according to Urban Capital’s most recent issue of Site Magazine, which compared a development pro forma from 2005 to 2020, development charges in the City of Toronto have increased by about 3,244% during this time period. (The S&P 500 was up about 220% during this same time.) These are obligatory fees that contribute to everything from transit and parks to subsidized housing and municipal services. (The line items above.)
So it strikes me that there are other more productive questions that we could and should be asking ourselves. Such as, why is it that our transit/mobility infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with new development and new housing demand? What are we going to do to fix that immediately? Why are we not taxing the things we don’t want (like traffic congestion) so that we have more resources for the things we do want (like transit and housing)? And most importantly, what is the best way for all of us to work together so that we can create the absolute greatest global city in the world?
It is starting to feel like 2021 could be a turning point for “missing middle” type buildings here in Toronto. Momentum seems to be growing and there’s increasing interest in finding ways to make this scale of housing more feasible — everything from duplexes to low-rise walkup apartments.
This week Councillor Bradford published a great op-ed in Spacing Toronto as a kind of call to action: Let’s make this year the year. In it, he provided an update on a pilot project that will be taking place in his ward — Beaches-East York — this year:
We’ll be setting out this spring to find a city-owned site and the right partners for the project. From there, the work will be to go through every step of the development process, from design to construction. This Pilot is about accomplishing two key tasks. One, building housing that meets the Missing Middle typology while aiming to incorporate the affordability and sustainability elements Toronto needs. Two, through undertaking that development process, to identify the execution issues so we can bring forward the policy corrections that’ll make what we achieve in the Pilot build replicable across the city.
With the continued run-up in single-family home prices, it really is starting to feel like we’re at a tipping point. Something is going to need to change. People continue to move to Toronto from all over the world. Perhaps this year will be the year. To learn more about the pilot project, take a look at this update report.
We are looking to hire an Associate or Director to join the Development team here in our Toronto office. The full set of responsibilities can be found over here on LinkedIn, but at a high level, we are looking for someone who wants to join an entrepreneurial team and lead — fairly independently — a portfolio of urban infill projects.
Our approach to development really stems from the broader Slate platform. We are bold and thematic investors who work to create long-term value for our investors and partners. From a development perspective, that translates into an unwavering commitment to design & culture, innovation, and disciplined project execution.
We pride ourselves on working alongside the world’s best architects and designers, and uncovering opportunities that others may be overlooking. We are proactive and hands-on in everything that we do. We also feel an inherent sense of responsibility for the buildings that we create and we want the work that we do to help improve our cities. We stand behind our product.
If this sounds like a mission that you can get behind, then I would encourage you to learn more about us at slateam.com and submit an application via LinkedIn. Please note that we are also asking candidates to introduce themselves through a short video.
