Kembangan by Jason Waltman on 500px
Earlier this week I attended RealNet’s Q1 2015 market update webinar for the Greater Toronto Area. If you don’t already subscribe to RealNet, you should consider it. They’re one of the best sources for Canadian real estate market information.
During their webinars, they occasionally run interactive surveys where they ask the audience a question and participants respond using their web browser. On this particular webinar, they asked the following question, which I thought was interesting:
What is the likely housing moving by Millennials in raising their families?
A) Move Up - Embrace urban high-rise housing forms
B) Move Out - Accept extended commutes (including the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Hamilton Area) to find affordable ground oriented housing
C) Move In - Cohabitate parental homes
It’s an interesting question because it’s one that I’ve asked myself a number of times. Sure, Millennials are rushing back to cities and living in high density and walkable communities, today, but what are they going to do and where are they going to move when they start having children?
As a Millennial myself, I know that I’ve always told myself that I want to stay urban for as long as I can (i.e. Move Up). But I’m only one data point. And given the seemingly endless demand for low-rise housing in Toronto, I always felt like I was in the minority. I figured that the majority of people, at least here in this city, still want a ground-related home when it comes time to raise a family.
Putting aside economics, I still think that may be the case for a lot of home buyers. But the majority of people on this week’s RealNet webinar (which would be almost exclusively folks from the real estate industry) either think that preference is going to change (or already has) or that consumers won’t have a choice due to affordability.
50% of the people on the call answered A – move up and embrace urban high-rise housing forms. The balance was about 44% for B and 6% for C.
That’s not the outcome I expected to see. So today I’d like to re-ask this question to the Architect This City Community. Where do you think Millennials are going to move once they start having children? Please let us know in the comment section below.
Image Source: Vancouver by Marc M on 500px
According to a recent Bloomberg article, this is where the rich are putting their money today:
“The two greatest stores of wealth internationally today is contemporary art….. and I don’t mean that as a joke, I mean that as a serious asset class,” said Fink. “And two, the other store of wealth today is apartments in Manhattan, apartments in Vancouver, in London.”
In case you wondering, Laurence Fink is the founder and CEO of BlackRock Inc., which today is the largest asset manager in the world. They have over $4.77 trillion in assets under management according to their website. That’s a mind boggling number.
And if you read the Bloomberg article cited above, you’ll see that this interest in both art and apartments represents a shift away from gold as the de facto safe haven.
“Historically gold was a great instrument for storing of wealth,” the chairman of BlackRock Inc. said at a conference in Singapore on Tuesday. “Gold has lost its luster and there’s other mechanisms in which you can store wealth that are inflation-adjusted.”
What’s interesting and probably most relevant to the Architect This City community though is this investment focus on apartments.
When people talk about a possible housing bubble in Canada they often cite house prices to median household income as a key ratio. The question then becomes: How can house prices be such a high multiple relative to local incomes?
That’s relevant, but it’s not the entire story for cities like New York, London, and Vancouver. That ratio alone assumes that real estate isn’t a global investment vehicle. And for some people people it is exactly that.
Earlier this week the Globe and Mail reported that the average price of a house in Toronto has risen to $613,933 and that the average price of a detached house has risen to $1,042,405. Those are a big numbers.
Low interest rates are a big part of this story. But there’s also a supply story at play here. The low-rise housing market in this city is heavily supply constrained and so we have an environment where people with more money simply outbid those with less money.
The high-rise side of the market, on the other hand, is creating lots of new supply. And in my opinion that’s why its price growth has been more moderate in recent years and why the pricing spread between low-rise and high-rise housing continues to widen.
Assuming these trends continue, one of the things I’ve thought about and written about in the past is whether we’ll eventually seeing a point where high-rise housing actually becomes a more affordable option for families. Because right now, if you’re in the market for a 3 bedroom home, a low-rise house is likely your most affordable option.
Here’s a quick comparison that I did up this morning between a detached house and a high-rise condo:
For the detached house, I assumed 1,800 square feet at a price of $1,042,405. That’s the average price mentioned above.
For the condo, I assumed a 1,500 square foot 3 bedroom home. I priced it at $650 per square foot (which would be above average for the city) and then added $40,000 for a parking spot. Here you have a slightly smaller condo, but it’s also priced slightly less.
I then compared operating/maintenance costs. For the condo, I assumed a maintenance fee of $0.59 per square foot (which I think is reasonable) and then added $100 per month for electricity. Typically electricity is billed outside of maintenance fees.
For the detached house, I tried to create a similar living situation. I assumed that the owner wouldn’t be cutting their own grass or shovelling their own snow. I assumed that money would be put away each month as a capital reserve for future house expenses (similar to the reserve fund in a condo). And I assumed a gym membership since most condos have a gym. I ignored property taxes and insurance.
The detached house still works out to be a less expensive to operate in this scenario, but not by much. Overall, the two appear quite comparable. Which is why I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a tipping point in the future where all of a sudden families start finally adopting the mythical 3 bedroom condo.
I have published my spreadsheet to the web in case you disagree with my assumptions and want to create your own.