The state of Utah is trying to build 35,000 starter homes over the next five years. Last year, $300 million was allocated to something known as the Utah Homes Investment Program (UHIP). The initial idea was that these funds would be provided as low-cost deposits to financial institutions so that they could, in turn, offer low-interest loans to homebuilders who committed to building single-family starter homes.

But this didn’t go as planned. Apparently, the low-cost deposits weren’t low enough to compensate for the perceived lending risk. So Governor Cox asked if the funds could instead be directed to the Utah Housing Corporation. Enter the Condominium Construction Loan Program. The way this newly created program works is that UHC can now provide low-cost loans — up to 100% LTC — directly to developers.

However, there are some stipulations:

• Warrantable projects: The projects must be warrantable to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, meaning the property and the individual condominium units need to be eligible for conventional mortgage financing.

• Owner-occupancy requirement: The individual condominium units must be sold to an owner-occupant, with a recorded deed restriction in place for a period of not less than five years. This is obviously to stop investors from buying and reselling.

• Equity sharing: The equity appreciation on the condominium unit is shared between UHC and the first owner-occupant. The homeowner earns 75% of the equity appreciation (15% per full year of occupancy, through five years), with the balance going to UHC upon sale of the unit.

So it’s a trade-off: buyers get access to new homes at below-market pricing (because the developer’s cost structure is reduced), and in exchange, they give up some of the potential upside. Will it work and help Utah achieve its starter home goal by 2030? I don’t know. But it’s clear recognition that if you want to deliver below-market housing, you need to provide subsidies.

It is disappointing to me that we often vilify all condominiums as being "luxury condos." I think the rhetoric is disingenuous and I think it distracts us from finding more productive solutions. As Mike Moffatt points out in this thread, if you look at virtually all major cities in Canada, the most affordable housing options are going to be condominiums and not low-rise freehold houses.

In his case, he looked at current for sale listings in London, Ontario, and found that for homes under $400k, about 81% of them were condominiums, and for homes over $1,200,000, only 4% of them were condominiums. Again: the real "luxury homes" are the low-rise houses that not the condos.

Now to be fair, John Pasalis is not wrong in responding to the thread and saying that on a per pound basis, or a per square foot basis, condominiums are actually more expensive. I've been saying this for years on the blog. When measured this way, mid-rise buildings are one of if not the most expensive housing typologies.

So John's argument is that, while condominiums may be the more affordable option for 1-2 person households, if you're a family in need of more space, low-rise housing is likely going to be more affordable for you on a per square foot basis. And I would agree with this statement.

The problem with this approach in the real world, though, is that people don't buy and afford homes based on this metric. You can't go to a bank and say, "I want to buy this house for $1.7 million dollars because it's only $680 per square foot when I include the basement, and that's better value than this 700 square foot condominium selling for $1,400 psf."

Sorry, the bank is going to tell you what total price you can afford based on your income. And that's why condominiums in our market have tended to serve as a critical entry point for first-time buyers. They're the most affordable option in terms of their total sale price.

So in my view, labelling all condominiums as "luxury" is not exactly productive. It ignores their role in providing more affordable homes; it overlooks the supply constraint that low-rise houses represent in most of our cities; and it's a distraction from the more systemic issue at hand: how do we make housing more affordable for everyone, including families?

Photo by Marcos Paulo Prado on Unsplash

The state of Utah is trying to build 35,000 starter homes over the next five years. Last year, $300 million was allocated to something known as the Utah Homes Investment Program (UHIP). The initial idea was that these funds would be provided as low-cost deposits to financial institutions so that they could, in turn, offer low-interest loans to homebuilders who committed to building single-family starter homes.

But this didn’t go as planned. Apparently, the low-cost deposits weren’t low enough to compensate for the perceived lending risk. So Governor Cox asked if the funds could instead be directed to the Utah Housing Corporation. Enter the Condominium Construction Loan Program. The way this newly created program works is that UHC can now provide low-cost loans — up to 100% LTC — directly to developers.

However, there are some stipulations:

• Warrantable projects: The projects must be warrantable to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, meaning the property and the individual condominium units need to be eligible for conventional mortgage financing.

• Owner-occupancy requirement: The individual condominium units must be sold to an owner-occupant, with a recorded deed restriction in place for a period of not less than five years. This is obviously to stop investors from buying and reselling.

• Equity sharing: The equity appreciation on the condominium unit is shared between UHC and the first owner-occupant. The homeowner earns 75% of the equity appreciation (15% per full year of occupancy, through five years), with the balance going to UHC upon sale of the unit.

So it’s a trade-off: buyers get access to new homes at below-market pricing (because the developer’s cost structure is reduced), and in exchange, they give up some of the potential upside. Will it work and help Utah achieve its starter home goal by 2030? I don’t know. But it’s clear recognition that if you want to deliver below-market housing, you need to provide subsidies.

It is disappointing to me that we often vilify all condominiums as being "luxury condos." I think the rhetoric is disingenuous and I think it distracts us from finding more productive solutions. As Mike Moffatt points out in this thread, if you look at virtually all major cities in Canada, the most affordable housing options are going to be condominiums and not low-rise freehold houses.

In his case, he looked at current for sale listings in London, Ontario, and found that for homes under $400k, about 81% of them were condominiums, and for homes over $1,200,000, only 4% of them were condominiums. Again: the real "luxury homes" are the low-rise houses that not the condos.

Now to be fair, John Pasalis is not wrong in responding to the thread and saying that on a per pound basis, or a per square foot basis, condominiums are actually more expensive. I've been saying this for years on the blog. When measured this way, mid-rise buildings are one of if not the most expensive housing typologies.

So John's argument is that, while condominiums may be the more affordable option for 1-2 person households, if you're a family in need of more space, low-rise housing is likely going to be more affordable for you on a per square foot basis. And I would agree with this statement.

The problem with this approach in the real world, though, is that people don't buy and afford homes based on this metric. You can't go to a bank and say, "I want to buy this house for $1.7 million dollars because it's only $680 per square foot when I include the basement, and that's better value than this 700 square foot condominium selling for $1,400 psf."

Sorry, the bank is going to tell you what total price you can afford based on your income. And that's why condominiums in our market have tended to serve as a critical entry point for first-time buyers. They're the most affordable option in terms of their total sale price.

So in my view, labelling all condominiums as "luxury" is not exactly productive. It ignores their role in providing more affordable homes; it overlooks the supply constraint that low-rise houses represent in most of our cities; and it's a distraction from the more systemic issue at hand: how do we make housing more affordable for everyone, including families?

Photo by Marcos Paulo Prado on Unsplash