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.
I’m not exactly sure what a “pre-fall” menswear collection is all about. But Louis Vuitton recently honored the late and great fashion designer Virgil Abloh by photographing one of them in and around Le Corbusier’s Firminy-Vert complex about an hour outside of Lyon, France.
Abloh was apparently a huge fan of the work of architect Le Corbusier. And he tried to apply the same kind of utilitarian approach to fashion as Le Corbusier had done to cities, buildings, and housing.
The Firminy-Vert complex is a series of buildings, one of which is the last of his “Housing Unit” designs (1965). Le Corbusier designed and built a number of these, with the most well known one being in the south of France in Marseille (1952).
They were a utopian model for high-density housing, with “streets” instead of corridors and with schools and other social functions being housed high up and inside the building. They were intended to act as a kind of vertical city.
To the untrained eye, they might resemble the kind of public housing that today goes unloved in many cities throughout the world. But for whatever reason, these particular renditions have largely stood the test of time.
Maybe it’s because of their importance to the development of modernist architecture, or maybe it’s because most of them (if not all of them) are now UNESCO World Heritages sites.
My take is that it shows you that architecture and built form alone can’t solve every problem. The same building in different places and different contexts, can and will perform very differently. In this particular case, in Firminy-Vert, the complex seems to be doing rather well. The perfect backdrop for a luxury pre-fall fashion collection.
Today, the province of Ontario responded (maybe not to my post) by publishing this Housing Affordability Task Force report. In it, are 55 recommendations to improve overall housing supply across the province, with the end goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.
I’m still making my way through the report, but the recommendations can basically be grouped into these five main buckets (taken verbatim from this press release):
Make changes to planning policies and zoning to allow for greater density and increase the variety of housing.
Reduce and streamline urban design rules to lower costs of development.
Depoliticize the approvals process to address NIMBYism and cut red tape to speed up housing.
Prevent abuse of the appeal process and address the backlog at the Ontario Land Tribunal by prioritizing cases that increase housing.
Align efforts between all levels of government to incentivize more housing.
Reform is badly needed. And I have gone on and on and on and on over the years about a number of the problems associated with how we build new homes and how we expect them to suddenly become more affordable.
Still, I think that most of the general public would be shocked to learn how long things take, how complicated we have decided to make land use approvals, and how a single person with a vested interested in seeing no development can hold up the delivery of thousands of new homes.
Progress is measured in years and decades. Months simply evaporate while you wait for the next PDF document to grant you access to some other labyrinthian planning hurdle. It doesn’t need to be this way.
Nabr, which I wrote about last year over here, recently announced its first residential project in San Jose’s SoFA district. Named SoFA One, the project is expected to have 125 apartments that will be offered up on a hybrid lease, own, and lease-to-own model. In this latter scenario, the company is saying that people will be able to buy with as little as 1% down. Construction isn’t scheduled to start until later this year, but if you’d like to get early access, you can add yourself to their waitlist, here.
As a reminder, Nabr is touting itself as a direct-to-consumer real estate company that aims to bring the same manufacturing and supply chain efficiencies that we have seen in virtually all other industries to the production of housing. This, of course, is not a new ambition. The flatlining of construction productivity is well documented, and lots of architects, builders, and entrepreneurs have tried to innovate in this space over the years. But it’s clearly a notoriously difficult problem to solve. So the obvious question here is: What is going to make Nabr any different?
Nabr is trying to productize housing. To do this, they’re building a vertically integrated process, going deep into supply chains, and trying to standardize their product offering as much possible. In the case of SoFA One, the base building is expected to consist of a CLT loft-style frame that can then be fitted out with various interior offerings. The idea here is that 90% of the build will be a repeatable system but that the remaining 10% is something that their customers will be able to customize — similar to when you’re buying a new car. The car is the same, but would you like black leather or brown leather?
Continuing with the car analogy, the company is also taking a move out of Tesla’s playbook for how they plan to roll out their products. The plan is to start at the top of the market (like what Tesla did with its expensive roadster) and then move downmarket as they drive efficiencies and cost savings in their delivery process. What they are trying to do is find the compounding innovation that has been present in most industries but that has been noticeably lacking from construction.
This all sounds great, but we know that buildings have a myriad of unique challenges compared to other products like cars and smartphones. My iPhone is the same as your iPhone, except for maybe the color and the case I put on it. But each development site is unique. Some have a high water table below it and some don’t. Some have adjacencies that will impact how you need to build and some don’t.
Each jurisdiction also has unique codes and regulations — everything from urban design guidelines to more or less stringent seismic requirements. Some cities have snow and some cities don’t. The list goes on. So what Nabr is going to have to do is create regionalized products with as much repetition as possible. And if they can generally lock the ~90% base building systems and just adjust the balance as needed, maybe that’s enough to do it.
At the end of the day, our industry is not completely void of innovation. It’s just a bit slow to change. We never used to build skyscrapers, but now we do. So I’ve decided to cast my developer cynicism aside. Today, we don’t have truly productized housing, but maybe we will.
As an aside, Nabr also recently shared their leaderboard of cities where people want to see a future Nabr building. Those cities are New York, London, Los Angeles, Toronto, and San Francisco.
Back in 2017, Portland, Oregon enacted new inclusionary zoning policies mandating that all new residential projects with 20 or more units must deliver a specified amount of affordable housing. Early accounts, by people like Joe Cortright of City Observatory, suggested that the market was reacting to this new requirement as you might expect. Developers rushed to get new applications onto the books and then there was a drop off in new housing supply.
Now that it’s been a couple more years, it is perhaps worth checking in on Portland. Cortright did that in the fall of last year and the housing numbers are continuing to fall. From 2019 to 2020, new multi-unit housing permits in Portland fell by more than 60%. I really don’t know the Portland market and so it’s hard for me to comment on whether it is solely the fault of IZ, but there was a peak in 2017 and now housing permits are down significantly. However, they were also down significantly during the financial crisis. It’ll of course be interesting to see how this plays out over a longer time horizon.
That said, a similar market response was recently reported in another Portland — Portland, Maine. In 2020, the city implemented a “Green New Deal” that stipulated, among other things, that all new residential developments with 10+ units would be subject to their new IZ policies. It has only been just over a year, but according to the city’s planning department, there were 756 new housing units on the books in 2020 prior to the new IZ policies. And since then, that figure has dropped to 139 new housing units. This is admittedly a small market and a relatively short time horizon, but it is still a data point.
As many of you know, I struggle with inclusionary zoning. Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but I just haven’t been able to find much data suggesting that it can meaningfully increase overall housing supply and the supply of new affordable units. So if any of you are aware of some good case studies outlining successful examples, please share them in the comment section below.
So 2021 was a pretty good year for condominiums here in the Greater Toronto Area. According to the latest data (Q4-2021) from Urbanation, this is what happened last year:
30,844 new condominium sales. This is a 69% increase compared to 2020, which saw 18,282 new unit sales.
Fourth quarter alone saw 8,361 unit sales, which is the best quarter on record according to Urbanation.
Unsold inventory dropped 26% year-over-year because sales exceeded the number of new project launches by over 4,000 units.
Average price for an unsold condominium unit in Q4-2021 reached $1,322 psf, which is an 18% increase compared to the year before.
Resale condominiums also did exceptionally well with 29,880 unit sales — a 49% annual increase.
All in all, some 60,000 condominium units were purchased last year in the GTA. Of course, some were ready to be lived in and some were future homes.
It has been cold and snowy in Toronto lately, which is great if you’re looking to shred pow on a snowboard, but suboptimal if you’re trying to construct buildings. It pains me deep inside my bone marrow when we lose productive days to weather. But what can you do?
I was, however, thrilled to see this first glimpse (pictured above) of the lobby / co-working space at Junction House this morning. The slightly elevated section (which is the point of view of the above rendering) is the co-working area.
The reason it’s elevated is that we needed the clearance below for our parking ramp. We thought about trying to make it retail, but a place for residents to hang out and work seemed like a pretty good idea.
A lot of us on the team are big fans of a great hotel lobby bar, but that’s kind of challenging to do in a residential condominium. This is maybe the next best thing. It’s been very popular with purchasers so far, but I’m looking forward to seeing how it performs in real life.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) recently published its latest data on housing starts, housing under construction, and housing completions. Here are a few of the highlights:
Canada saw 271k housing starts last year (2021). This includes single-detached housing and multiples, which captures semi-detached housing, row housing, and apartments (and other unit types). This is the highest number of annual housing starts that we have seen over the last five years. The range for the prior years has been between roughly 209-220k.
Ontario saw 100k (~37% of the country), Quebec saw 68k (~25% of the country), and British Columbia saw 48k (~18% of the country).
What I was curious about when I first saw these numbers was the split across the various housing types. Single-family homes, for instance, came in at 82k for all of Canada. So that’s about 30% of total housing starts. If you add in semi-detached and row, which I believe would also be all grade-related, you get to 124k or 46% of all housing starts.
Apartments and other unit types make up the balance at about 147k or 54% of all housing starts. This is kind of interesting because they now represent a majority.
Looking at Ontario, the percentage of apartments actually drops to 50%. But the numbers are much higher in both Quebec and BC at 69% and 63%, respectively. Again, this is kind of interesting.
Despite all of our deference to single-family housing, the numbers suggest that we are actually in the midst of building a different kind of country — one that entails people living in “apartments and other unit types.” Maybe it’s time we got more granular with this line item.
Note: CMHC defines “apartment and other unit types” to include not just apartments, but also stacked towns, duplexes, triplexes, double duplexes (whatever this is), and row duplexes. A number of these will, of course, be grade-related. But they still represent more intense forms of land use.
The “drive until you qualify” approach to finding housing that you can afford is a well established practice. Anecdotally, I can tell you that I have friends who are right now looking for a grade-related home under the C$1 million mark. This constraint, as most of you know, is pushing them to the outer reaches of Toronto’s suburbs. But if it were up to them, it would be their preference to stay in the city. According to the “two millennials” behind The Habistat, the average distance of an entry level detached house from the Toronto core (defined as a 3 bed, 1 bath under $800,000) is now 81.8km.
There’s a lot to be said about this. For one, home prices across many/most markets are way up. Earlier this week on the blog it was mentioned that the average price of a US home is up about 19% year-over-year. This is likely unsustainable. We are coming off of a period of easy money policies and at some point things will normalize along with the broader economy. Looking at the equity and crypto markets, it may be happening right now, but I don’t really know. (Fred Wilson wrote a post last year calling this “one of the great asset bubbles of modern times.”)
We know that the centralizing forces inherent to most cities have been weakened during this pandemic. For periods of time, they were completely off. So it is no surprise that we have seen greater decentralization (sprawl) than what might have ordinarily happened. I was in a (zoom) meeting this past week with somebody who has spent the last two years traveling around South America while working remotely. It sounded like a lot of fun and I was admittedly a little bit envious of her adventures. But as I argued at the beginning of this year, I think most people are going back to offices and this centralizing force will have an impact on real estate.
Because “driving until you qualify” is a function of an affordability constraint, it tells you certain things about consumer preference, but not all things. What I mean by this is that it tells you that somebody is willing to trade the cost of a commute for more space and/or the housing type of their choice. This has been an easier trade during COVID because the cost of commuting has been relatively — albeit temporarily — low for many people. So less of a discount for distance. But what I think this doesn’t tell you is what true consumer preference would be if all things were more equal and we increased housing supply and options in other areas of our cities.
At the same time, there’s a very real question of whether the measuring stick in the above chart should be a grade-related detached house? Is this a reasonable expectation in the same way it was for prior generations? I am not a fan of dictating what people should and shouldn’t do. But maybe 100km away from the core becomes untenable. And again, maybe if we increased both supply and options, we would find new housing preferences revealing themselves. I am specifically thinking of those who would prefer to stay in the city, but can’t find something they think is suitable.
At the end of the day, we can’t ignore the fact that we are profoundly hypocritical when it comes to the delivery of new housing. We acknowledge that we’re in a housing crisis and we acknowledge that we need more affordable housing (both for sale and for rent), and yet we continue to make it systematically more difficult and more expensive to deliver it. The development charges, parkland fees, and many other costs that continue to increase and get applied to new housing are a real worry to those in the industry.
It is a worry because we’re all wondering how much price elasticity is left in the market. That is, how much more can consumers afford before they stop buying and renting? It is a worry because it means that new rental housing, which has always been a challenge to pencil in our market, is now completely infeasible in many more submarkets. Our solution to all of this is to mandate a certain number of affordable units in new developments. But this is yet another tax on new housing.
To be fair, the delivery of new housing is subject to countless competing interests. This is arguably why it is such a tricky problem to solve and why there are no easy answers. But that’s what we do around here. We explore new ideas. And maybe, just maybe, there are other options besides just driving until you qualify. Next up (or soon up): A look at the competing interests behind new housing.
The latest US consumer price index report was recently published and for the 12-month period ending December 2021, the all items index rose 7.0%. This is the largest 12-month increase since June 1982. Here’s a breakdown:
Gasoline (all types): +49.6%
Used cars and truck: +37.3%
Meats/fish/poultry/eggs: +12.5%
New cars: +11.8%
Food at home: +6.5%
Electricity: +6.3%
Food away from home: +6.0%
Apparel: +5.8%
Transportation: +4.2%
Shelter: +4.1%
The obvious standouts here are the price of gasoline and the price of used cars and trucks. Too much demand and not enough supply, it would seem. But the other conspicuous line item for me is shelter at only 4.1%. Is that it?
As Charlie Bilello points out in his latest newsletter, US rents were estimated to be up about 17.8% in 2021 (the highest increase on record according to Apartment List) and the Case-Shiller US National Home Price Index was similarly up about 19% year-over-year.
I also just glanced at the latest Urbanation rental report that came out today, and condominium rents were up 10.8% year-over-year here in the Greater Toronto Area. So I don’t know about this 4.1% number. But maybe I just missed something in the fine print.
What it shows is (1) the number of new housing using created through the addition of secondary suites, such as basement apartments and laneway suites; (2) the number of housing units lost to demolition or “deconversions”, such as when a duplex or triplex gets converted (back) to a single-family home; and then (3) the net new units added over the last three years.
In looking at the chart, you’ll see that the City of Toronto actually lost about 2,000 units from its existing housing stock between 2019 and 2021. Again, these numbers only consider what’s happening in the city’s existing low-rise residential housing stock. They don’t factor any of the housing supply being delivered through new condominiums and multi-family apartments.
Still, it’s evidence for something that is perhaps already well known: many of Toronto’s low-rise neighborhoods are losing people. They are losing people because the existing structures are housing fewer residents and they are losing people because we make it difficult to build new housing. We want them to be “stable.” But stable built form doesn’t necessarily mean that things aren’t changing on the inside.
Now compare this to what’s happening in Brampton (a suburb of Toronto). CUR is calling Brampton the land of secondary suites. Over the last three years, it added nearly 11,000 housing units and was on pace (at the time the data was published) to create nearly 6,000 last year alone (most of which are basement apartments). This is all within its existing housing stock.
With all of this, I think there’s an interesting question about about how much of this is being driven by market demand and how much of this is being driven by land use policies. There’s obviously demand for expensive single-family homes in Toronto, which is why “deconversions” are happening. But to what extent does this change if/when we become more permissive around multi-unit dwellings?
