Our cost consultant, Finnegan Marshall, gave our team a presentation today on what's happening with construction costs in Toronto and across Canada. I've said this before, but hard costs are no joke right now.
One of the areas that they focused on was the impact that inclusionary zoning is likely to have on development economics here in Toronto. To illustrate the point, a sample high-rise condominium pro forma was used. Think something in the 30-35 storey range.
Assuming a requirement of 10% affordable (the policy details are still TBD), there is going to be a real cost to development pro formas that will need to be somehow paid for.
One school of thought is that land prices will simply adjust downward. In this case, the landowner would be the one paying. I don't think this will be the case (land prices tend to be sticky), but if they were to adjust downward, it would need to drop by $44 per square foot buildable to maintain the project's margins in this example. (That's $13.2 million on a 300,000 sf project.)
If, on the other hand, the price of the remaining market rate condominium suites were to increase to offset the cost of the affordable component, they would need to increase by $91 per square foot. This translates, in the above example, into a sticker price increase of approximately $60,000 per suite.
These numbers are, of course, not exact. That is not the point of this post. Every project is different. But hopefully it gives you an idea of some of the levers that will invariably need to be pulled when inclusionary zoning comes into force.
My sense is that this latter scenario is more likely to happen. I have yet to see land prices adjust downward in the face of rising costs. So all of this is likely to be bad for broad-based affordability, but good if you want to be bullish on market rate home prices.
One of the debates I came across on Twitter this week was about multi-tenant houses (also known as rooming houses) in Toronto. Currently, they are allowed in the former city of Toronto, parts of Etobicoke, and in York. But they are illegal everywhere else in the city.
The reason why the rules differ is simply because they weren't harmonized following amalgamation in 1998. And so right now we are debating whether or not things should be changed so that multi-tenant houses are permissible across the city.
As you can probably guess, it's a divisive issue.
The more urban councillors believe that rooming houses are vital because of their relative affordability. The more suburban councillors are, on the other hand, speaking for their constituents and saying that homeowners really don't want them in their communities. It's about "protecting the integrity of single-family communities."
No surprise here.
For this reason, a recent vote on the issue was deferred. It's expected to come back to council in September. Maybe there will be more support at that time. Or maybe there won't be. Either way, rooming houses will continue to exist all across the city. Some of them may just be illegal.
If I had any say in the matter, I would vote "yes."
The New York Times is running an opinion series right now called, The America We Need. It is all about how the US might emerge from this crisis "with a fair, resilient society." This piece by Carol Galante covers many of the topics that we discuss on this blog. Carol is a former city planner and nonprofit housing developer. She is now the faculty director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC, Berkeley. Here are a couple of excerpts from her article that I think will resonate with many of you:
There are two things we know: The U.S. economy will recover. And the recovery will start in and be strongest in the same cities that were thriving before the pandemic. Economies in places like Seattle, San Francisco, New York and Boston are driven by the innovation, technology and biotech sectors, which are proving to be remarkably resilient to the impacts of Covid-19.
We have an obligation to ignore the short-term reactionary impulse to blame density for the spread of the coronavirus and instead use this opportunity to rethink the policies that impede the construction of new housing, at more price levels, in the places where housing is most needed.
In my subsequent career as a nonprofit housing developer working in prosperous coastal California communities, I spent far too many nights in City Council meetings working to get apartment buildings for lower-income older people and families approved. Underlying the “density” battle was almost always a battle over who has access to the opportunities of a place and who doesn’t, cloaked in arguments about neighborhood character and traffic impacts.