Subscribe
We completed and started renting Parkview Mountain House in Park City, Utah about a year ago. Construction took slightly longer than we had initially scheduled, but we finished construction under budget, which is always a good thing. Getting our building permits was easier than expected (thank you, Summit County) and closing them out involved as much back and forth as you would expect for a challenging mountain site. I would happily build another project in Park City.
Some of our greatest challenges happened on the legal and financing side. When we acquired the site, we formed a single-purpose Limited Partnership in Utah that was initially owned by one of Globizen's Canadian corporations, and later with two other partners (another Canadian corporation and a New York LLC).
Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) are very common in the US. They offer a kind of hybrid "sweet spot." They offer the limited liability that comes with corporations, but with the option of having the pass-through taxation you get with Limited Partnerships. However, they don't exist in Canada, and so the legal and tax advice we got was to instead form a Limited Partnership. I'll come back to this later.
The first challenge we had was the seemingly simple task of opening up a bank account for the project LP. Wells Fargo, Chase, and others would not accept a Utah LP owned by a Canadian corporation. Too foreign. Too complicated. We finally managed to get one opened with US Bank, and they've been great, but being Canadian still poses challenges. For example, I can't use their mobile app in Canada. And I can't deposit cheques/checks online without first verifying my mobile number. But I can't verify my mobile number because their system won't send codes to Canadian numbers.
The next hurdle was construction financing. It was frustrating to learn about all of the simple and cost-effective "one-close solutions" available to US entities, but not available to foreign nationals. We could have gotten a great rate, and a construction loan that automatically converts to a permanent facility at substantial completion. Instead, we had to finance construction through a combination of equity, lines of credit, and a private loan. Not ideal, but at least the draws were flexible and easy.
Then came our take-out loan at completion. This proved to be impossible with our legal structure and foreignness. So much so that we ended up having to convert our Utah Limited Partnership to a Limited Liability Company, and become "members" of the LLC personally. This is a clean, common, and widely accepted structure for real estate ownership in the US. But in order to do this, we had to have KPMG advise us on how we could do this without triggering a massive tax liability. We were able to figure that out and close the facility. But our year-end tax filings are going to be a little more complicated this year.
In the end, we overcame the obstacles. But it was certainly challenging, more so than the actual building part I'd say. Every time I mentioned that I was Canadian, I came to expect a pause, where the other person would then need to start processing what to do next. As international as the US is, it feels paradoxically insular when it comes to the things I described in this post. But this is how you gain experience. Now we'll be slightly better prepared for our next US project, whatever that might be.
Note: Nothing in this post should be viewed as legal or financial advice. I'm just sharing our experiences.
The vast majority of new purpose-built rental housing in Canada relies on CMHC-insured loans to make them financially feasible. In 2024, CMHC estimated that their construction financing programs backed an estimated 88% of new rental starts across the country.
But anyone in the industry will tell you that the terms in which these loans are made available to developers are constantly changing. And I think it's pretty clear that many of the changes being made are intended to push, maybe force, developers into building some percentage of affordable homes as part of their projects.
At the political narrative level, this makes sense: Canada needs more affordable housing. But it's important to remember that homes pegged to below-market rents are not financially feasible to build on their own. So, unless equivalent subsidies are being somehow provided, the remaining market-rate homes will be forced to shoulder the additional costs.
We talk about this a lot on the blog (see inclusionary zoning posts), and I don't see it as an equitable solution. But there's also the problem of it further choking off new housing supply. And my sense is that that's exactly what is happening. It's only getting harder to underwrite new rental housing — certainly in cities like Toronto.
This will have the opposite effect on overall affordability. It also increases the probability that my supply predictions will prove roughly correct. I can't see a world where new rental supply is able to step up and fill the gap being left by new condominiums, a large portion of which was serving as new rental housing.
Toronto is on a path toward a severe housing shortage, and it's very hard for the private sector to do much about it in the current market environment. When that will change remains to be seen.
Toronto has more people living in apartments than not. Looking at 2016 census data, the City of Toronto has about 1,112,930 occupied private dwellings and the breakdown between apartments (both lower and higher than 5 storeys) and grade-related housing is roughly 60/40. If you look at what's been built more recently, the split is closer to 80/20. From 1996 to 2014, about 78% of all housing completions in the city were condominiums/apartments.
So what is obvious to me is that the City of Toronto is becoming more dense, rather than less dense, and that family housing is destined to become more urban. As of 2011, there were 10,145 more families with children living in apartments/condominiums in the city compared to 15 years earlier. By comparison, the number of families with children living in low-rise housing remained more or less flat over this same time period.
Of course, what this data doesn't speak to is the number of people and families that may have opted to leave the City of Toronto for the suburbs -- driving until they qualify for the kind of housing product that they would like to consume. The number of children living in higher density housing might be increasing within the city, but we probably shouldn't ignore the pull toward the suburbs that still exists during family formation.
Cities around the world are working to make their urban environments more suitable to families and young children. Here in Toronto we have something known as the Growing Up Guidelines. But the focus seems to be largely on design considerations -- think playrooms and stroller-friendly foyers. That's crucial, but it's not everything. There are also very real economic realities to consider.
The average price of remaining condo inventory in the Greater Toronto Area last quarter was nearly $1,100 psf. That puts a family-sized 1,000 sf suite at $1.1 million -- and a lot more if you're in a central neighborhood. The average would be closer to $1.5 million downtown. Obviously not all families can afford this. So there's an affordability challenge. It's one thing for the critics to say that developers should be building larger suites, but the market needs to be there.
Another consideration is that of financing. Most developers rely on construction financing in order to build their projects. And in order to build a new condominium, there is typically a requirement to pre-sell a certain number of suites (revenue is the actual governor). This is generally a lot easier to do with smaller suites and with investor suites because these buyers tend to be more comfortable waiting out construction.
Families, on the other hand, usually have a more immediate time horizon. It's harder to forecast when the need will arise and it may not be financially viable to do that pre-emptively. And so I would argue that in addition to having an affordability challenge, we also have a financing structure in place that biases the type of homes that get built. There are, of course, advantages to this model. Pre-sales are a way for lenders to mitigate risk. It helps to ensure that the market doesn't get ahead of itself. But there are side effects.
Despite all this, we are seeing more families with children in higher density housing. Anecdotally, I see it happening in elevators with the number of strollers. This trend is destined to continue, but the winds are not entirely at the back of this shift.
We completed and started renting Parkview Mountain House in Park City, Utah about a year ago. Construction took slightly longer than we had initially scheduled, but we finished construction under budget, which is always a good thing. Getting our building permits was easier than expected (thank you, Summit County) and closing them out involved as much back and forth as you would expect for a challenging mountain site. I would happily build another project in Park City.
Some of our greatest challenges happened on the legal and financing side. When we acquired the site, we formed a single-purpose Limited Partnership in Utah that was initially owned by one of Globizen's Canadian corporations, and later with two other partners (another Canadian corporation and a New York LLC).
Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) are very common in the US. They offer a kind of hybrid "sweet spot." They offer the limited liability that comes with corporations, but with the option of having the pass-through taxation you get with Limited Partnerships. However, they don't exist in Canada, and so the legal and tax advice we got was to instead form a Limited Partnership. I'll come back to this later.
The first challenge we had was the seemingly simple task of opening up a bank account for the project LP. Wells Fargo, Chase, and others would not accept a Utah LP owned by a Canadian corporation. Too foreign. Too complicated. We finally managed to get one opened with US Bank, and they've been great, but being Canadian still poses challenges. For example, I can't use their mobile app in Canada. And I can't deposit cheques/checks online without first verifying my mobile number. But I can't verify my mobile number because their system won't send codes to Canadian numbers.
The next hurdle was construction financing. It was frustrating to learn about all of the simple and cost-effective "one-close solutions" available to US entities, but not available to foreign nationals. We could have gotten a great rate, and a construction loan that automatically converts to a permanent facility at substantial completion. Instead, we had to finance construction through a combination of equity, lines of credit, and a private loan. Not ideal, but at least the draws were flexible and easy.
Then came our take-out loan at completion. This proved to be impossible with our legal structure and foreignness. So much so that we ended up having to convert our Utah Limited Partnership to a Limited Liability Company, and become "members" of the LLC personally. This is a clean, common, and widely accepted structure for real estate ownership in the US. But in order to do this, we had to have KPMG advise us on how we could do this without triggering a massive tax liability. We were able to figure that out and close the facility. But our year-end tax filings are going to be a little more complicated this year.
In the end, we overcame the obstacles. But it was certainly challenging, more so than the actual building part I'd say. Every time I mentioned that I was Canadian, I came to expect a pause, where the other person would then need to start processing what to do next. As international as the US is, it feels paradoxically insular when it comes to the things I described in this post. But this is how you gain experience. Now we'll be slightly better prepared for our next US project, whatever that might be.
Note: Nothing in this post should be viewed as legal or financial advice. I'm just sharing our experiences.
The vast majority of new purpose-built rental housing in Canada relies on CMHC-insured loans to make them financially feasible. In 2024, CMHC estimated that their construction financing programs backed an estimated 88% of new rental starts across the country.
But anyone in the industry will tell you that the terms in which these loans are made available to developers are constantly changing. And I think it's pretty clear that many of the changes being made are intended to push, maybe force, developers into building some percentage of affordable homes as part of their projects.
At the political narrative level, this makes sense: Canada needs more affordable housing. But it's important to remember that homes pegged to below-market rents are not financially feasible to build on their own. So, unless equivalent subsidies are being somehow provided, the remaining market-rate homes will be forced to shoulder the additional costs.
We talk about this a lot on the blog (see inclusionary zoning posts), and I don't see it as an equitable solution. But there's also the problem of it further choking off new housing supply. And my sense is that that's exactly what is happening. It's only getting harder to underwrite new rental housing — certainly in cities like Toronto.
This will have the opposite effect on overall affordability. It also increases the probability that my supply predictions will prove roughly correct. I can't see a world where new rental supply is able to step up and fill the gap being left by new condominiums, a large portion of which was serving as new rental housing.
Toronto is on a path toward a severe housing shortage, and it's very hard for the private sector to do much about it in the current market environment. When that will change remains to be seen.
Toronto has more people living in apartments than not. Looking at 2016 census data, the City of Toronto has about 1,112,930 occupied private dwellings and the breakdown between apartments (both lower and higher than 5 storeys) and grade-related housing is roughly 60/40. If you look at what's been built more recently, the split is closer to 80/20. From 1996 to 2014, about 78% of all housing completions in the city were condominiums/apartments.
So what is obvious to me is that the City of Toronto is becoming more dense, rather than less dense, and that family housing is destined to become more urban. As of 2011, there were 10,145 more families with children living in apartments/condominiums in the city compared to 15 years earlier. By comparison, the number of families with children living in low-rise housing remained more or less flat over this same time period.
Of course, what this data doesn't speak to is the number of people and families that may have opted to leave the City of Toronto for the suburbs -- driving until they qualify for the kind of housing product that they would like to consume. The number of children living in higher density housing might be increasing within the city, but we probably shouldn't ignore the pull toward the suburbs that still exists during family formation.
Cities around the world are working to make their urban environments more suitable to families and young children. Here in Toronto we have something known as the Growing Up Guidelines. But the focus seems to be largely on design considerations -- think playrooms and stroller-friendly foyers. That's crucial, but it's not everything. There are also very real economic realities to consider.
The average price of remaining condo inventory in the Greater Toronto Area last quarter was nearly $1,100 psf. That puts a family-sized 1,000 sf suite at $1.1 million -- and a lot more if you're in a central neighborhood. The average would be closer to $1.5 million downtown. Obviously not all families can afford this. So there's an affordability challenge. It's one thing for the critics to say that developers should be building larger suites, but the market needs to be there.
Another consideration is that of financing. Most developers rely on construction financing in order to build their projects. And in order to build a new condominium, there is typically a requirement to pre-sell a certain number of suites (revenue is the actual governor). This is generally a lot easier to do with smaller suites and with investor suites because these buyers tend to be more comfortable waiting out construction.
Families, on the other hand, usually have a more immediate time horizon. It's harder to forecast when the need will arise and it may not be financially viable to do that pre-emptively. And so I would argue that in addition to having an affordability challenge, we also have a financing structure in place that biases the type of homes that get built. There are, of course, advantages to this model. Pre-sales are a way for lenders to mitigate risk. It helps to ensure that the market doesn't get ahead of itself. But there are side effects.
Despite all this, we are seeing more families with children in higher density housing. Anecdotally, I see it happening in elevators with the number of strollers. This trend is destined to continue, but the winds are not entirely at the back of this shift.
Cover photo by Darren Richardson on Unsplash
Cover photo by Darren Richardson on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
