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.
If you were a city-state only slightly larger in area than the City of Toronto, you would think about space very differently. There would be no option to just sprawl further out. And that is the case for Singapore, which is approximately 734 km2 compared to Toronto’s 630 km2.
So it’s no wonder that Singapore carefully manages how people use and own cars. Not only were they the first country in the world to implement a congestion charge (road pricing), but they also force people to buy 10-year “Certificates of Entitlement” in order to own one.
These are auctioned off every 2 weeks and the overall supply of them is controlled by the government.
Currently, the starting price for a COE is S$104,000 (roughly the same in Canadian dollars). This is a record high and up nearly 3x compared to 2020 when fewer people wanted to own a car. However, if you’d like a COE that works on all sizes of cars, that is right now S$152,000.
It’s hard to imagine a system like this ever flying in a large country like Canada. But if Canada were the size of just Toronto, you can be sure that we would likely have no other choice. That said, this is more or less how we treat new housing: we’ve made it difficult and expensive for new entrants.
In a recent interview with FT, the CEO of Airbnb, Brian Chesky, said that the company is looking at the following expansion plans:
Offering long-term rentals of up to one year (currently, only about 18% of bookings on the platform are for 30 days or longer)
Offering more “things to do on your trip”, including car rentals and dining
These brand extensions make natural sense. You book a trip and then maybe you need a car, or something fun to do. I have used Airbnb “experiences” on a number of occasions to book things like boat tours and photographers. It’s a great service.
Perhaps more interesting, though, is how the housing component of their platform is evolving. They started by offering excess or found space for rent (which was very clever). Then it grew to become a short-term rental platform that competed with hotels.
This has created a significant amount of regulatory risk for the company (see New York), and so it’s not surprising that they’re looking at other ways of slicing up housing: rooms, nights, months, and now years.
Longer stays are less contentious.
If you’re renting on a nightly basis, then you’re an annoying tourist that is taking away housing. And if you’re renting on a monthly basis, then you might be an annoying digital nomad and that is similarly problematic. But if you’re renting for a year, well, then, that’s perfectly fine.
Now you’re just a normal city dweller.
Is there a world where Airbnb becomes a major platform for traditional long-term rentals?
Non-profit Vivre en Ville launched a new rental registry in Ontario last week. It is an extension of the one that they launched in Quebec last spring. The way it works is that it allows anybody to enter how much they’re paying in rent. In other words, it’s a crowdsourcing platform.
The site then displays this information on a map so that everyone can see current and past rents. The data points are all anonymous and no personal information is linked to them, but the idea is to “preserve affordability in the residential market by providing access to important rent information.”
Obviously, the thinking is that greater transparency will lead to more affordable housing. Presumably because you’ll now be able to see if you’re somehow being bamboozled, among other things.
I’m not 100% convinced that this will be the case, but I am of the general opinion that more transparency and more information is better than less transparency and less information.
I also find it interesting that there seems to be a lot of people willing to take the time to share this kind of information. According to the Toronto Star, they launched in Ontario with over 3,000 rental inputs. And according to their website, the full registry has over 40,000 inputs.
Matthew Slutsky (formerly of BuzzBuzzHome fame and now of Livabl fame) recently invited me on his podcast to talk about some of our current and upcoming condominium projects, as well as about the market in general.
Despite my best attempts, I only briefly talk about NFTs and crypto (in the context of our One Delisle project). So if any of you are sick of hearing that from me, the episode should be overall fairly tolerable.
To have a listen, click here. It’s about 30 minutes.
At the beginning of this month, between Sep 2 and Sep 4, the research company Nanos conducted a random survey asking Canadians about their views on housing. The survey reached 1,044 adults and you may find the results interesting:
Nationally, three in five Canadians “support” or “somewhat support” decreasing the number of immigrants coming into Canada until housing becomes more affordable. (The feds plan to welcome 500,000 immigrants per year by 2025.)
The provinces that are the most in support of reduced immigration are the Prairies (65%), and the province with the lowest support is BC (52%).
82% of Canadians are “opposed” or “somewhat opposed” to building new housing on land currently set aside as green space. Of this group, 64% responded with “opposed”.
55% of Canadians “support” or “somewhat support” giving tax incentives to private developers to build new rental housing. The highest support for this is in BC (61%), Quebec (60%), and among Canadians 55 or older (55%).
However, this support flips when Canadians are asked about giving tax incentives to private developers to build for-sale housing. 58% of Canadians are “opposed” or “somewhat opposed” to doing this.
These last two points took me a second to decipher, because the wording in the article is “new rental units” and “new homes.” Naturally, I initially read these two things as being the same thing. New rentals are new homes. So what are they trying to say here?
My assumption (in the above) is that it’s a housing bias coming through and that a “new home” equals a for-sale low-rise house. Hmm. We really need to be more mindful of the semantics in our housing vocabulary.
Here is a study by three researchers out of California that asked Americans to predict the impact of a supply shock on various things, such as durable goods, commodities, labor, trade, and yes, housing.
For basically all of these items, people tended to answer correctly. Usually by a factor of at least two to one. In other words, when asked what reducing the supply of new cars would do to the prices of used cars, the majority of people responded saying that it would lead to an increase in prices.
However, when asked about the impact of a 10% increase in housing supply, about 40% said that it would cause prices and rents to rise. Only about a third believed they would fall (the correct answer). This is fascinating because it shows that housing seems to be an outlier. Most people don’t have the same intuitive sense.
Why is this? Well, one commonly held belief is that building market-rate housing leads to gentrification, and that this ultimately leads to the displacement of existing residents. This might have been why some people responded saying that new housing will cause an increase in prices and rents. It’ll lead to all housing going up.
However, there’s research to support that this isn’t the case. The problem isn’t outward displacement following new market-rate housing. The greatest driver of gentrification is actually “exclusionary displacement”, which is the inability of people to move into areas because of a lack of housing. (This study was based on 2010-2014 housing data from the UK.)
The thing about housing supply is that it relieves pressure across the entire market. Instead of a high-income person buying an old home to renovate (and causing outward displacement), they can instead choose to buy a new home (and not cause any outward displacement).
By doing this, they also leave behind a home that can then be absorbed by lower earners. One US study found that for every 100 new market-rate homes that are built, somewhere between 45 and 70 people move out of a below-median income neighborhood.
It is for reasons like these that, time and time again, increased housing supply has been shown to moderate home prices and rents (see above regarding Minneapolis and the Midwest as a whole). So if you’re worried about the cost of housing, the answer is to build more. And if you’re worried about gentrification, the answer is also to build more.
Our intuitions are telling us that this is true for most things. But for whatever reason, housing feels different. It’s not, though.
Source: The charts and studies in this post are from this great FT article by John Burn-Murdoch.
Big news today in development land. The federal government just announced that it has removed sales tax (GST/HST) from new rental housing effective immediately. This is a significant step in the right direction, and something that we have spoken about many times before on the blog.
In the case of a newly constructed or substantially renovated multiple-unit residential complex or addition to a multiple-unit residential complex, the builder must generally self-assess GST/HST on the fair market value of the whole of the substantially completed multiple-unit residential complex or addition when possession of the first unit is given under a lease, licence or similar arrangement as a place of residence of an individual.
What this is saying is that if you build new rental housing, and even if you plan to continue owning it forever, you need to determine the fair market value of the property and then pay HST on that amount. In Ontario, the HST rate is 13%. However, the effective rate was a bit lower because of new rental rebates. Let’s say it was somewhere around 11%.
Now that this no longer needs to be paid, a lot of rental projects that were flirting at the margin should suddenly make economic sense. Which is why I tweeted earlier today that every housing developer in Canada is right now dusting off their “what if we built rental” development pro forma. It didn’t work yesterday, but maybe it does today!
Today is a good day for new rental housing supply in Canada.
Update: This announcement only relates to the federal portion of the HST. The feds are now calling on provinces to follow suit.
Montreal has a bylaw that came into effect on April 1, 2021 and that requires developers to contribute to the city’s supply of social, affordable, and family housing. (All three of these have their own definition.)
Developers can meet this requirement in a number of different ways:
They can build the social, affordable, and/or family housing
They can contribute land or a building
Or they can pay cash-in-lieu
Usually, I think of inclusionary zoning as being the first of these three bullet points: a hard requirement to build a certain amount of non-market housing. That is not an absolute requirement here, and so I see this policy as being IZ lite.
Since the bylaw came into force, there have been approximately 150 new projects by private developers in Montreal, according to this CBC article. That has resulted in about 7,100 new market-rate homes. At the same time, it has resulted in exactly zero non-market homes.
From what I can tell from the article, every single developer has opted for option three: pay the cash-in-lieu instead of actually building the housing. Supposedly this has produced about $24.5 million in new fees, which sounds like a lot. But if you divide it by 7,100 homes, it isn’t all that much: just under $3,500 for each new home.
So what is clear is that this is the least expensive option. That’s why everybody is choosing it. If the fee was significantly higher and it was cheaper to just build the social/affordable/family housing, then every developer would just do that. This is how development pro formas work.
But at the end of the day, we are still taxing new housing and new home consumers for the purpose of trying to create a smidgen of more affordable housing. And this has never sat well with me, especially considering that there are plenty of other things that we could be doing to make new housing more affordable for everyone.
We thought rising mortgage rates would crush the homebuilders, and bet against Pulte in the FT stockpicking contest. But the exact opposite happened: high rates froze the existing house market by giving homeowners a huge incentive not to move — their irreplaceable cheap mortgages. That left new homes as almost the only game in town for anyone who really needs to buy a home. Pulte has been one of the best- performing stocks in the S&P 500. Never pick stocks, even in a stupid stockpicking contest, on the basis of superficial research.
And here’s a chart that supports this argument (new homes as a % of total single-family home inventory, including resales):
It’s an interesting nuance.
But it’s certainly a different story here in Toronto with new condominium sales. According to Urbanation, in the first half of this year, the Greater Toronto Area sold 6,727 new condominium homes. This is down 59% compared to 2022, and represents the slowest first six months in a decade.
In this case, higher rates have dramatically slowed the market.
We are getting ready for first occupancies at Junction House and it is exciting to see how many young families — with children — are looking forward to moving into the building’s larger 2-storey suites. (These are the suites that gave the project its name — Junction House.)
From the outset, this was always a part of our development thesis. You can’t, or at least it’s very difficult, to pre-sell an entire building of larger suites in Toronto. But we figured that in a submarket like the Junction, which is very popular with young families, that there had to be some buyers who would want a house-like residence.
Meaning, two floors of living spaces, upstairs bedrooms (better acoustic separation), larger living spaces, and a terrace for BBQing and gardening, among other things.
We are now seeing this play out with the wonderful people coming in for their pre-delivery inspections, and it’s a really nice thing to see. Not only as a developer, but as a dedicated urbanite and lover of Toronto. I am not suggesting that it’s for everyone. But clearly there is a segment of the market that wants this.
For a list of available homes at Junction House, including floor plans and pricing, click here.
