Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Category: Housing

  • A conversation about families in condominiums

    I spent this morning filming a new short video for Junction House. My friends Adriana and Mateusz live in a beautiful boutique condominium building downtown. They are also raising their young daughter there, and using it as an office and design studio (he’s an architect). This is a story that we are looking to tell in a new campaign that we’ll be launching this fall, and so I very much appreciate them volunteering their time.

    We talk about this a lot on the blog, but there are deep cultural biases in Toronto (and throughout North America) around single-family housing. But that is changing. For a variety of reasons, more and more people are choosing to live in multi-family buildings and to raise families within them. We believe that there are many benefits to this lifestyle choice, and that it is ultimately a positive thing for our cities. So that’s what we were discussing this morning.

    Thank you both for your time, and thank you to Studio Haus for figuring out how to get the lighting right in a corner suite with copious amounts of natural light.

  • A network of smart homes across the globe

    I was reading about Wander last night before bed. For those of you who aren’t familiar, they are a startup that is building a network of smart homes around the world so that people can live and work remotely. You rent these homes like you would a home on Airbnb, but the difference here is that Wander owns all of the homes and is working to create a very unique and consistent kind of experience. They also offer a membership that costs $200 per year and gives you benefits like discounts on bookings and early access to new properties. So far the company has raised $27 million to help build out this vision.

    This is all very interesting to me because I think it’s a great idea, and because 20 some years ago I wrote a business plan with a friend of mine that was almost identical to this. We were both still in undergrad and we had this hypothesis that a lot of people would love to find a way to live as citizens of the world. We obviously never did anything with that plan, but in looking back we were probably too early, even if we were right about people’s latent desires. Today, things feel very different. I think there’s little doubt that knowledge working has become more flexible. So I suspect we will see a lot more of these kinds of ideas going forward.

  • Project Profile: 1925 Victoria Park Road, Toronto

    A recent development proposal at 1925 Victoria Park Road (Toronto) by Well Grounded Real Estate (developer) and Partisans (architect) is noteworthy for a number of reasons:

    • The 12-storey, 168-suite residential mid-rise building is proposed to be built out of mass-timber.
    • It is targeting Toronto Green Standard Tier 4, which is a voluntary, difficult-to-achieve, and expensive sustainability target. It is the equivalent of net-zero and I believe the only projects to date that have achieved this level in the city are public projects.
    • The circulation spaces are exterior single-loaded corridors that face an internal courtyard. This approach is very common in some cities, but almost non-existent in Toronto. Usually because someone will cite our winters as being a problem and because double-loaded corridors are typically the most efficient (rentable area / gross construction area). But the benefits are that you don’t need to heat/cool these corridor spaces and you open up the possibility of suites with windows on both ends.
    • The design doesn’t generally follow the typical “pyramid-shaped confection” that has come to define Toronto mid-rise buildings, though it does seem to generally conform to the 45 degree angular planes that we love to obsess over. Instead, it is starting to resemble a typical European courtyard building. Good. For some more commentary on this, check out John Lorinc’s recent piece in the Globe and the Mail.

    This is unquestionably an ambitious project. And ambition is what cities need. So I am pleased to write about it today on the blog. If you’d like to learn more, check out their project website.

    Image: Partisans

  • A few charts on the US housing market

    Here a three interesting charts about the US housing market from Redfin (via Charlie Bilello’s weekly newsletter).

    Bidding wars, which are defined as an offer with at least one other competing bid, declined from nearly 70% of sales at the beginning of this year to about 44% as of July 2022.

    Stale inventory, which is defined as a home sitting on the market for more than 30 days, is up 12.5% year-over-year. This is the highest jump since 2012, not counting the spike at the beginning of the pandemic (April 2020).

    The number of US homes that cut their asking price over the last 4 weeks is now up to 7.8% as of the first week of August 2022. This is the highest percentage since 2015. The seasonality exhibited in this chart is also interesting.

    All of this said, the median sale price for a home in the US is still up 8.2% on a year-over-year basis. Though since June of this year, prices have fallen about 4.1%. I don’t know about all of you, but I’d much rather be buying today than in January of this year.

  • Income vs. wealth in California’s housing market

    Here is a chart from MetroSight that compares housing tenure in California in 2000 and then between 2015-2019:

    Two things you might notice immediately are that the number of renter-occupied households has generally increased and that the number of owner-occupied households without a mortgage (i.e. they own their home free and clear) has also increased for every age category except for those 65 or older.

    MetroSight uses this data to argue that a new “wealth-related phenomenon is emerging” in California. Instead of the housing market being largely driven by income (that is, I make this much per year and I can afford this much house), it is being driven by accumulated wealth.

    The possible explanations for this are as follows:

    • The share of renter-occupied households is increasing because people increasingly can’t afford to buy
    • The share of owner-occupied houses with a mortgage is decreasing because less people can afford to buy given California’s price-to-income ratios
    • The share of owner-occupied houses without a mortgage is increasing because people are increasingly inheriting homes or getting gifted cash from their families

    Consider that the share of owner-occupied houses without a mortgage even increased for the 18-24 age category. Unless you’re the next Zuckerberg (who was a billionaire at age 23), this is pretty challenging to do without some kind of assistance, especially in a place like California.

    This outcome also provides a possible explanation for why the over 65 age category is the only segment that has seen a reduction in free and clear ownership. It is because they are transferring their wealth to the next generation so that they too can obtain homeownership.

    Chart: MetroSight

  • It’s time to build, but not here

    Oof.

    Let’s assume for a second that you penned an article back in April 2020 called, “It’s time to build.” And in this article, you argued, among other things, that we’re not building nearly enough housing and that home prices are skyrocketing as a result.

    Now let’s assume that a new multi-family zoning overlay is being proposed for your own neighborhood in an attempt to increase said housing supply and alleviate some of the concerns around home prices. And in response to this proposal, you pen this:

    One might call this being hypocritical. But I’m not here to name call. I think the real lesson is what Jerusalem Demsas points out in her recent article, “The Billionaire’s Dilemma.”

    What we have is a macro-micro disconnect that policy makers need to be more aware of. At the macro level we know what we should be doing in order to achieve our stated objectives. But if we allow people at the micro level to veto these efforts, they often will, and sometimes using ALL CAPS.

  • Consistency over intensity — rethinking Toronto’s low-rise neighborhoods

    Toronto’s chief planner, Gregg Lintern, published this piece in the Toronto Star over the weekend where he argued that “expanding housing options in [Toronto’s] neighbourhoods is the missing piece of the growth puzzle.”

    What he is saying is that if we’re going to have any chance at reasonably accommodating the 700,000 or so people who are expected to move to this city over the next three decades, we’re going to have to evolve our low-rise neighborhoods. That includes more retail, more amenities, more density, and yes, built form that houses multiple units.

    I immediately thought that this was meaningful progress in the right direction. It is acknowledgement that things need to change and that our low-rise communities need to change.

    But others felt that this was a case of soft-serve ice cream, arguing that there’s “danger in praising incremental, belated change when dramatic change is what’s needed.” I also see this point.

    To quote the late architect Daniel Burnham, “make no little plans.” But this is arguably a little easier to subscribe to when you’re rebuilding after a great fire has decimated your entire city (he was instrumental in the rebuild of Chicago following its fire of 1871).

    The unfortunate reality today, at least in this environment, is that bold vision isn’t often rewarded politically. The status quo bias is simply so great. Change is painfully slow. That’s why we rely so heavily on pilot projects when it comes to city building.

    So while I too am a fan of bold vision, I also see value in what Simon Sinek and others refer to as consistency over intensity. Small, repetitive, and compounding actions can have powerful long-term results. You just have to keep going in the right direction.

    And I think that many of us, or perhaps most, will agree that the right direction is rethinking our low-rise neighborhoods.

    Photo by Tungsten Rising on Unsplash

  • The mini mid-rise

    It is obvious that Toronto needs to find new ways to increase housing supply. And I have written before about how I think our major streets are a good place to look.

    The above proposal by Naama Blonder of Smart Density is one way to start thinking about how we could do that. Dubbed the “mini mid-rise”, the idea here was to show how a single lot might be intensified with a small multi-unit building.

    This is a great idea. It was one of five projects that just won the Ontario Association of Architects’ annual design challenge. But for it to have a chance at working, we’re going to need to remove all of the friction associated with building this kind of housing.

    These would need to be permissible as-of-right. No rezoning. No site plan control. Just straight to building permit.

    We would also need to eliminate all parking requirements (which we are thankfully doing). The market will very quickly correct if these homes cannot be rented without parking.

    We would need to ensure that these homes can be built without any cooperation from the adjacent neighbors. Because that cooperation may not always be there.

    We would need to ensure that there are no funny code requirements that might serve as an additional obstacle.

    And we will probably also need to look at subsidies and other incentives so that these homes are economically feasible to build. This might include development charge waivers and/or tax abatements.

    None of this is, of course, impossible. It’s just a question of how bad we want this to happen.

    Image via Smart Density

  • The definitive but crazy guide to creating more affordable housing

    Okay, so maybe this isn’t an entirely definitive guide. But the intent is to make this post a kind of working post. As new ideas emerge (from my end or from your ends), I will endeavor to update it, so that maybe one day it will become a bit more definitive. I also think it’s important to keep it a little crazy. Because housing affordability is clearly a tough problem to solve, so unless we start thinking differently and acting boldly, we may not get there.

    Here goes.

    • Encourage new housing at all scales (low, mid, high)
    • “Upzone” all major streets and transit station areas
    • Allow multi-unit dwellings in low-rise neighborhoods and ensure that any applicable codes and/or policies are not creating unnecessary obstacles to building at this scale
    • Work to make the largest possible housing scale permissible on an as-of-right basis — that is, remove the rezoning process wherever possible and allow builders to go right to a building permit (a lengthy rezoning process can cost millions)
    • Avoid the use of inclusionary zoning policies that do not provide an equal offset or subsidy (such as a density bonus)
    • Ensure that any development charges and levies are commensurate with the burdens created by new housing and that existing property owners are funding their fair share through property taxes
    • Identify the areas that are NOT seeing new housing and then create incentives to make development feasible
    • Search for underutilized land and other opportunities to add new housing — no land parcel should be considered too small
    • Incentivize small-scale prototypes as a way to test out new ideas and foster innovation — specifically with respect to climate change and construction productivity
    • Eliminate all parking minimums – no ifs, ands, or buts
    • Depoliticize the planning process as much as possible — local politicians are not generally incentivized to encourage new housing
    • Eliminate the ability for individuals to block or significantly delay new housing
    • Ensure that there are enough staff to expeditiously review and process development and building permit applications — if builders are hiring “expediters” in the hopes of moving these things along, it means something is broken
    • Put in place strict response and issuance timelines for building permits
    • Bonus city staff (and anyone else who touches housing supply) based on the number of housing units approved and permitted each year
    • Design smaller and more urban-friendly garbage trucks so that less space is lost in every new housing development
    • Reduce/eliminate complex urban design guidelines, such as Toronto’s widely used 45-degree angular plane guideline

    What is missing from this list? And/or what did I get wrong?

    Last updated: July 25, 2022

  • The fall of manufactured housing

    In 1973, 580,000 mobile homes (or manufactured home as they are now called) shipped in the United States. This represented about 50% of the number of single-family housing starts that year, and about 22% of total housing starts. So they represented a significant chunk of the overall housing supply.

    But following the collapse of the US housing market in 1974, an interesting thing happened. Manufactured homes never managed to reclaim their position in the stack. See above chart. Brian Potter, author of Construction Physics, puts forward a number of possible explanations for this, over here.

    Some have speculated that it was the result of new code changes that ended up increasing costs. Some have speculated that it was because of a new requirement to include a steel chassis on the bottom of every home, which also increased costs, but more importantly stigmatized manufactured homes. It made them seem transient, whereas previously they were installed on permanent foundations.

    There are also some theories that manufactured home production was harder hit during the economic downturn given that they had more fixed plant costs (compared to site-built homes with their variable labor costs).

    But Brian’s current working theory is that it comes down to capital flows. Manufactured homes tend to cater to lower-income buyers and so supply, as the argument goes, has largely depended on “lax lending” practices being made available to them.

    I’m not so sure that this is the only reason though. For one thing, multi-family housing starts have followed a somewhat similar trajectory to manufactured homes. We’ve certainly seen an increase in supply over the last decade, but we’ve never gotten back to that early 1970’s peak.

    And so I wonder: How much of this is actually just the result of the single-family home hegemony? This is arguably what the market has historically wanted (look at the split pre-1973 in the above chart), and so perhaps we simply refocused our attention there and worked to make this housing type as accessible as possible to the masses.

    Chart via Brian Potter