We have spoken about this topic -- of larger family-sized suites -- many times before on the blog. And my argument then, as it is now, is that the largest barrier is cost. We can talk about cultural biases (which I do think exist in North America) and, sure, we can talk about how to better design for families. But until we solve the problem of costs or until low-rise housing gets so prohibitively expensive that it tips the scales in favor of multi-family buildings, I'm not sure we're going to see a meaningful shift.
To be fair, it does appear that the number of families living in apartments and condominiums is increasing here in Toronto. My neighbor is one data point. However, broadly speaking, I don't think it's happening with the "larger family-sized suites" that most people imagine in their minds when they talk about this opportunity.
So how do we address this? There are a number of interesting ideas in the above Twitter thread that I would encourage you to check out. Ratcheting down or eliminating development charges (and other government levies) on larger suites is one of them. But what is obvious is that this is a challenging problem to solve. So the brutally honest answer is that I don't really know what will be most effective. But here are three potential places to start.
As-of-right mid-rise buildings
Remove the barriers to building more mid-rise. One irony of mid-rise buildings is that they are probably the most desirable form of multi-family housing and yet they're the most expensive to build. A lot of this has to do with construction costs and other unavoidable diseconomies of scale, but there are other things we can do. In my view, we should target to make all mid-rise buildings fully as-of-right. This means no rezoning costs, no community meetings, and overall simpler designs. Instead, the rough process should be: buy site, work on permit drawings, and start marketing new homes.
Growth pays for as much as possible
Please watch this short 1-minute video:
https://twitter.com/itsahousingtrap/status/1664981658196488193?s=20
This is also something that we talk a lot about on this blog. But most people outside of the industry don't think of it in this way, or they don't care. The mantra is that "growth pays for growth", which obviously sounds good. Tax new housing based on its impacts. But in reality this is not what's happening. What is happening is that "growth pays for as much as possible as long as new home prices keep rising." And it persists partially because nobody except evil developers see these large bills. But if we really want to make new housing more affordable and if we really want to encourage more families in new multi-family buildings, then we need a more equitable solution.
Financing new family-sized homes
The way we finance new homes impacts the kind of housing that gets built. Here in Toronto, new condominium projects generally require a certain percentage of pre-sales, because construction lenders want as much certainty as possible that they will get their money back upon completion. In theory, it also reduces the chance of overbuilding because you've pre-sold most/all of the homes. So there are obvious benefits to this approach. However, the problem is that you need people to now buy in advance. And oftentimes, the people buying early aren't families who expect to need 3 bedrooms in 5.2 years. Should there be another financing solution for larger homes?
Once again, these are just three potential places to start. But I think they're all critically important. If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please leave them in comment section below.
Let's talk some more about floor plan designs and the economic constraints that form part of the decision making process. There continues to be a narrative out there that for-profit developers only want to construct small apartments (a form of social engineering perhaps) and that they aren't focused on livability. So let's dig into some of the constraints.
Consider that the
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 have spoken about this topic -- of larger family-sized suites -- many times before on the blog. And my argument then, as it is now, is that the largest barrier is cost. We can talk about cultural biases (which I do think exist in North America) and, sure, we can talk about how to better design for families. But until we solve the problem of costs or until low-rise housing gets so prohibitively expensive that it tips the scales in favor of multi-family buildings, I'm not sure we're going to see a meaningful shift.
To be fair, it does appear that the number of families living in apartments and condominiums is increasing here in Toronto. My neighbor is one data point. However, broadly speaking, I don't think it's happening with the "larger family-sized suites" that most people imagine in their minds when they talk about this opportunity.
So how do we address this? There are a number of interesting ideas in the above Twitter thread that I would encourage you to check out. Ratcheting down or eliminating development charges (and other government levies) on larger suites is one of them. But what is obvious is that this is a challenging problem to solve. So the brutally honest answer is that I don't really know what will be most effective. But here are three potential places to start.
As-of-right mid-rise buildings
Remove the barriers to building more mid-rise. One irony of mid-rise buildings is that they are probably the most desirable form of multi-family housing and yet they're the most expensive to build. A lot of this has to do with construction costs and other unavoidable diseconomies of scale, but there are other things we can do. In my view, we should target to make all mid-rise buildings fully as-of-right. This means no rezoning costs, no community meetings, and overall simpler designs. Instead, the rough process should be: buy site, work on permit drawings, and start marketing new homes.
Growth pays for as much as possible
Please watch this short 1-minute video:
https://twitter.com/itsahousingtrap/status/1664981658196488193?s=20
This is also something that we talk a lot about on this blog. But most people outside of the industry don't think of it in this way, or they don't care. The mantra is that "growth pays for growth", which obviously sounds good. Tax new housing based on its impacts. But in reality this is not what's happening. What is happening is that "growth pays for as much as possible as long as new home prices keep rising." And it persists partially because nobody except evil developers see these large bills. But if we really want to make new housing more affordable and if we really want to encourage more families in new multi-family buildings, then we need a more equitable solution.
Financing new family-sized homes
The way we finance new homes impacts the kind of housing that gets built. Here in Toronto, new condominium projects generally require a certain percentage of pre-sales, because construction lenders want as much certainty as possible that they will get their money back upon completion. In theory, it also reduces the chance of overbuilding because you've pre-sold most/all of the homes. So there are obvious benefits to this approach. However, the problem is that you need people to now buy in advance. And oftentimes, the people buying early aren't families who expect to need 3 bedrooms in 5.2 years. Should there be another financing solution for larger homes?
Once again, these are just three potential places to start. But I think they're all critically important. If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please leave them in comment section below.
Let's talk some more about floor plan designs and the economic constraints that form part of the decision making process. There continues to be a narrative out there that for-profit developers only want to construct small apartments (a form of social engineering perhaps) and that they aren't focused on livability. So let's dig into some of the constraints.
Consider that the
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.
When you multiply these two numbers together, you get an "ideal" three bedroom suite that costs just over $1.6 million. Of course, this is without parking. So if you want downtown parking, add another $100-200k (which, at this price point, is still almost certainly going to be a loss leader for the developer).
All of a sudden, you've now got a $1.7 - 1.8 million residence. This will work in some submarkets and in some locations, but certainly not all.
So what happens is that the end price becomes a constraint. And in order to make the suite more affordable, the developer will naturally look for ways to make it smaller. Turn this into a 900 square foot three bedroom and all of a sudden you shave off over $300k from the price.
The point I am hoping to make is that developers generally aspire to respond to what the (sub)market wants. If the (sub)market wants a certain price point, developers will try and meet that need. If the (sub)market wants massive apartments, developers will gladly deliver. (We're working on combining some supremely awesome suites at this very moment in fact.)
Photo by Loewe Technologies on Unsplash
When you multiply these two numbers together, you get an "ideal" three bedroom suite that costs just over $1.6 million. Of course, this is without parking. So if you want downtown parking, add another $100-200k (which, at this price point, is still almost certainly going to be a loss leader for the developer).
All of a sudden, you've now got a $1.7 - 1.8 million residence. This will work in some submarkets and in some locations, but certainly not all.
So what happens is that the end price becomes a constraint. And in order to make the suite more affordable, the developer will naturally look for ways to make it smaller. Turn this into a 900 square foot three bedroom and all of a sudden you shave off over $300k from the price.
The point I am hoping to make is that developers generally aspire to respond to what the (sub)market wants. If the (sub)market wants a certain price point, developers will try and meet that need. If the (sub)market wants massive apartments, developers will gladly deliver. (We're working on combining some supremely awesome suites at this very moment in fact.)
Photo by Loewe Technologies on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
