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

  • No-cost affordable housing in Toronto

    It upsets me when I read things like this (click here if you can’t see the embedded tweet above). I think it creates a false sense of a free lunch and ignores all of the nuances and complexities associated with inclusionary zoning.

    IZ is an obligation to provide a certain number of affordable units in new housing developments. There’s a lot of detail and debate around where this should apply, how much needs to be provided, and at what degree of affordability.

    But at the end of the day, it’s important to keep in mind that at meaningful levels of affordability, these IZ homes are going to be built at steep losses. More info on the economic impacts of IZ can be found here.

    The simple math is that the costs to build these homes are going to be greater than the revenues that they bring in. Which is why developers aren’t out building affordable housing everywhere. There’s no margin.

    In order to build, somebody or something needs to provide a subsidy so that this revenue-expense shortfall can be made up. How this works its way through the market is where I have tried to focus the discussion when writing about IZ. There are complexities. Some lessons from Portland, here.

    But to just assume that these costs will get magically absorbed by housing developers, with no other knock-on effects or distortions to the market, is incorrect.

  • Condo rents in Toronto are up 11.4% quarter-over-quarter

    Urbanation released its Q3-2021 rental report for the Greater Toronto Area at the beginning of this week. The vacancy rate in purpose-built rental buildings fell to 3.0%. This is down from 5.1% in Q2-2021 and 6.4% in Q1-2021. For the former City of Toronto (the city pre-amalgamation), vacancy rates declined to 3.8% in Q3-2021, down from 9% in Q1-2021. So people are renting apartments.

    At the same time, rents are growing. The average rent for newer purpose-built rentals was $2,389 per month or $3.30 per square foot at the end of last quarter. This is up 3.8% from Q2. But what is also interesting to see is how quickly the core / downtown is snapping back. Looking at condominium rentals, the former City of Toronto had the lowest leases-to-listings ratio at the start of the pandemic in Q2-2020. But in Q3 of this year, its ratio was the highest. See below.

    Average rents have also spiked for condo rentals in the core, posting an 11.4% quarter-over-quarter increase and a 6.2% year-over-year increase. The average rent is now sitting at $2,405 per month or $3.62 psf. See above. Remember when everyone thought that cities were dead and nobody was ever going to live in a downtown apartment ever again? Yeah, that was funny.

    Charts: Urbanation

  • Zillow pauses algorithmic homebuying business

    Zillow just announced that it has paused its (algorithmic) US homebuying business for the remainder of this year. The company acquired some 3,800 homes in Q2 of this year and, apparently, it now has a backlog of repairs and sales to work through. As a reminder, this business model, which is sometimes referred to as iBuying, is based on using algorithms to quickly value and buy homes (mostly online). The homes are then renovated and flipped for a profit. The problem, as most of you know, is that this pandemic has, among other things, disrupted construction supply chains and made it difficult to hire people. That has hurt the renovation component of this model.

    Today’s news was bad for Zillow’s stock, but good for Opendoor’s stock, which is their main competitor. Opendoor subsequently came out and announced that they remain open for business. (Disclosure: I am long $OPEN). But this announcement is perhaps a good reminder that buying and selling real estate remains a different animal than, say, buying and selling stocks. And so there are some perfectly understandable reasons for why real estate hasn’t been disrupted by the internet in the same way that other industries have. Matt Levine does a great job explaining this in his recent column, “Sorry, Zillow’s Computer Can’t Buy Your House Right Now.”

    Here’s an excerpt:

    “I’ll pay you $350,000 for your house as long as a human can go out there, look around, and make sure that price isn’t wildly off” is an interesting model but it’s not quite the same as “push this button to sell your house for $350,000.” And “I’ll pay $350,000 for a house and then send out a crew to replace the carpets” is not quite the same as “I’ll pay $350,000 for a house and flip it 20 minutes later for $355,000, collecting a small spread for providing liquidity.” Computerization has come into the housing market, but it hasn’t taken it over yet.

    One of the challenges is that the supply of homes is heterogeneous, even in a suburban community or in a multi-family building where you might have the same set of floor plans that repeat. Because maybe the home has been renovated and fit out entirely in gold. Or maybe it’s the opposite and it has been poorly maintained. There are variables to contend with that have historically necessitated more rather than less human involvement. Homes are also something that don’t trade all that frequently, which is less than optimal when it comes to online marketplaces.

    But what if buying and selling a home was dramatically cheaper and easier to do? How often would people actually do it? Presumably more often. I agree with Matt that “computerization” hasn’t taken over the real estate industry just yet. But algorithmic homebuying still appears to be one of the more promising approaches.

  • Down payment assistance through co-ownership

    A close friend of mine is part of a company here in Toronto called Ourboro. They are a home financing company that offer up to $250,000 toward down payments on homes. In exchange for this, they take a stake in the home and their pro-rata share of any future appreciation. So they are really co-owners. And they make their money on the gains. The maximum hold period is 10 years, but the principal owner is free to buy out Ourboro and stay in the home if they want.

    It’s an interesting model (and I have written about analogous ones before on the blog). Because in expensive housing markets like Toronto, saving up enough of a down payment is usually the biggest barrier to homeownership. But the question that I continually ask my friend is this: Does a model like this actually end up hurting overall affordability by increasing people’s buying power? Similar to what happens when interest rates go down. People can now afford more home.

    Perhaps. But Ourboro’s roots are in social enterprise and their focus is on helping people who might not otherwise be able to buy a place. They also see their approach as addressing the “fundamental imbalance of housing supply and demand in Canada.” We know that more supply would help with affordability, but so does this I guess. And it’s easier to implement.

    I suppose another way to look at this model is that it’s allowing individual homeowners to bring on co-investors, which is, of course, normal practice in the world of commercial real estate and development. Most developers don’t have all the equity needed to finance their own projects. They raise it from outside investors (and prosper through the magic of carried interest). Now end-users can do that too (but sorry, no carried interest per se).

    So if you’re in the market for a new home in the Greater Toronto Area and are looking for a little help with the down payment, Ourboro might be an option for you to consider.

  • Affordable housing for all?

    Bloomberg CityLab has a new video out talking about how Vienna has seemingly solved the housing unaffordability problem that is impacting most global cities around the world. Each year Vienna builds about 14,000 new housing units and about half of this is supply is “affordable.” Already over 60% of Viennese live in an affordable home. The title of the video suggests that their approach is radical, but is that really the case?

    What was clear to me when I watched the video is that there are perhaps two key differences in terms of how Vienna approaches this problem. One, they quite simply care about delivering high-quality affordable housing to the middle class. They think it’s culturally important and they believe that architecture and design matters. Two, they are willing to invest in it, both up front and over time (maintenance).

    In the video, the former Vice Mayor of Vienna talks about how the City will go out and buy land (or use already owned land) and then make it available (sale or lease) at discounted rates so that it makes economic sense for non-profit housing developers. If the math still doesn’t work for the private sector, then there are other subsidies available.

    I’m certainly not an expert on Vienna’s approach to housing delivery. And I’m not suggesting it’s perfect. My knowledge base comes largely from one 13 minute episode by CityLab. But I think it’s notable that I didn’t pickup anything in the video about inclusionary zoning leading the way (which I have argued before tends to shift the burden to the remaining market rate housing units). Instead, they value it and they invest in it. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

    Image: CityLab

  • 🙌 La Bovida

    Paris 1e

  • A tale of two different kinds of Brutalism

    This article from the Guardian about two Brutalist housing estates in London is now more than five years old. But the story is perhaps just as interesting. The article is about two “New Brutalism” estates that were designed and built in the 1960s and 1970s.

    The first is the Barbican Estate (which appeared recently on the blog over here) and the second is Robin Hood Gardens (pictured above, partially). Both were designed by notable architects and both have been equally divisive when it comes to their aesthetic appeal. We’re talking about Brutalism. So it’s likely that you either love them or hate them.

    One of the big differences between these two housing complexes is that one is a private estate and the other is (or was) social housing. And perhaps because of this, the Barbican has remained desirable and Robin Hood Gardens was ultimately demolished starting in 2017. This is despite numerous outcries from the architecture and design community that it should be both preserved and listed.

    We could get into questions of funding and maintenance, as well as the design differences between the two complexes (I don’t have any of these details), but even without all of this, I find these two divergent outcomes pretty interesting. Architecture, it would seem, isn’t everything.

  • Does new housing supply need better economic incentives?

    I watched a bit of the English leadership debate the other night. Eventually I got frustrated and went to bed, but I understand that housing affordability and overall affordability were important topics.

    What is clear, to anyone who cares to look, is that in most big cities we are not building enough new housing. According to the above Economist article (linked in the above tweet), the “rich world” has seen new housing production drop by about 50% (relative to population) since the 1960s.

    There are many reasons for this. But part of the problem is bureaucracy. Things move exceedingly slow. And another part of the problem is community opposition. Urban sprawl can be easier to swallow because there’s an out-of-sight-out-of-mind phenomenon at work. Stuff may be happening, but it’s not happening in my backyard.

    But now that so much of what we do is centered around intensifying existing neighborhoods, we are faced with a battle between the incumbents (existing residents) and the future residents of a community that don’t have nearly as much say — if any at all.

    What I like about the Economist article is their line of thinking for how to address this dynamic, which, at the end of the day, is rooted in what I will call expected selfishness.

    The approach is around aligning incentives. How could we better structure the delivery of new housing so that more stakeholders stand to directly benefit? Because as we have seen with laneway housing here in Toronto, homeowners will gladly build in their backyard when they stand to benefit directly.

  • US expects to deliver more than 330,000 new rental units this year

    Here’s some recent data from RENTCafe looking at the supply of new multifamily rental apartments in the US. About 334,000 rental units are expected to be completed and occupied this year, which is a decline from the 2018 peak of 357,000 units, though still a relatively high number. This year is expected to be the fifth consecutive year where supply is greater than 330,000 units. Below you can also see how this breaks down across the largest MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas).

    For this study, RENTCafe looked at new apartment construction data for buildings with 50 or more units (so no smaller infill projects). It covers 109 US metro areas. To determine whether a building is likely to be completed in 2021, they looked at confirmed certificate of occupancies and also used some sort of fancy algorithm to predict the likelihood that an under construction project will get one before the year is out.

    For more on their study, click here.

  • Never too small — beautifully designed small spaces

    This is my new favorite YouTube channel. I discovered it last night and it’s called “Never Too Small.” The focus is on beautifully designed small spaces. And all of the videos are meticulously crafted — they have a calming feel to them.

    The first video that I watched was the one above (click here if you can’t see the embed) about Desmond Wong’s 31st floor apartment in Hong Kong. At 52 square meters, it’s actually one of the larger spaces on the channel. But it is perhaps important to keep in mind that this was a 2-bedroom flat before Desmond renovated it.

    Floor plans are an interesting thing (and something I enjoy working through for work) because there are lots of nuances to consider, some of which are entirely local. For example, in this flat you’ll see that the kitchen is off in its own little room and furnished with a window.

    That is common in many of the HK apartments that I have seen, but it is not how we would typically lay things out in a new build of this scale here in Toronto. The kitchen would likely be a galley kitchen adjacent to the living/dining room to create more of an open concept plan.

    I’m looking forward to watching their other episodes. For more about NTS, you can also check out their website. They recently published a book which, from what I can tell, looks equally beautiful.