The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an article called, “SF residential projects languish as rising costs force developers to cash out.” It talks about the impact that rising costs (both construction and other) are having on new housing supply. Some developers aren’t building even though may have entitled sites. And that’s because the math doesn’t work, even though we’re in a market with a severe housing shortage.

Here is an excerpt from the article that talks about the kind of pricing that is needed in order to make a project work:

Chris Foley, a real estate investor and partner in brokerage firm Polaris Pacific, said that in the current construction environment a condominium developer needs to sell units for at least $1,400 a square foot for a wood-frame building and $1,800 a square for a taller, steel-frame midrise or high-rise. Even in a city where more than 80 percent of the population is priced out of the market, those numbers are a stretch, Foley said.

San Francisco also has inclusionary zoning, which requires a certain percentage of units in any new development to be priced below market. According to the article, it is 18% for new rental projects and 20% for new condo projects. That’s a cost that needs to be absorbed by the remaining market rate units – so price accordingly. 

The MIRA tower designed by Studio Gang is currently under construction and has 156 affordable units and 393 market rate units. The market rate pricing looks something like this:

That’s the case with three buildings rising near the new Transbay Transit Center: Mira, the Avery at 400 Folsom St., and One Steuart Lane, which overlooks the Embarcadero at the foot of Howard Street. Unless there is a remarkable drop in the market, units in all three of those buildings will probably have an average sales price of more than $2,000 a square foot and penthouses could fetch $3,000 or even $4,000 a square foot. A 3,326-square-foot penthouse at 181 Fremont St., which opened last spring, recently sold for $15 million, or $4,500 a square foot.

Projects being squeezed by rising costs is something that we are also seeing here in Toronto. And I don’t believe that the general public fully appreciates that there are limits to the costs that can be shouldered by new development. And the reason for that is because there are limits to what people can afford to pay for new housing.

Photo by Jamie Street on Unsplash

About a year ago, Portland enacted “Inclusionary Housing” policy requiring new apartment buildings of 20 units or more to offer up a portion of the units at below market rents.

Developers are able to select from a few different options and the rents are calculated according to a percentage of the city’s median family income (30-80%). I’m not sure how this policy would apply to new condo buildings.

This is an interesting account by The Portland Mercury of what this policy may be doing to the housing market. I say may because it’s only been a year and there could be other factors at play.

Between 2013 and 2017, Portland typically built between 3,000 and 6,000 new units per year. Since the IH policy went into effect on February 1, 2017, 682 new units have applied for permit. 

About half are coming from one developer who appears to be building the requisite affordable units in exchange for no parking minimums. They are now proposing buildings with zero parking.

Again, in all fairness, it’s only been a year. But already Mayor Ted Wheeler is looking at other incentives to encourage more new construction in the central city. The biggest levers: height and density.

All of this begins to speak to the very real impact of inclusionary zoning on development feasibility.

Photo by Zach Savinar on Unsplash

After my recent post on inclusionary zoning in Ontario, I was asked to provide my comments on the draft regulation and on how inclusionary zoning could and will impact development feasibility. So I will endeavor to do that today.

It’s important to first understand the costs and inputs that go into a development pro forma and how overall project feasibility is determined. For simplicity, let’s breakdown the costs as follows:

- Land

- Soft Costs

- Financing Costs

- Municipal Fees/Charges

- Hard Costs

All of these costs buckets are significant. For a project to be feasible, you obviously need the revenues of the project to be greater than the above costs. There also needs to be a remaining profit margin that is commensurate with the risk profile of the project and that meets your investor’s return expectations. Most developers rely on outside equity and debt to finance their projects.

One of the misconceptions that I often hear is that people seem to think that the profit margin on projects is so great that developers could simply build affordable housing (or do many other things) if they weren’t so greedy. The reality is that development happens on the margin. It’s not easy to find sites and projects that make any sort of financial sense. More often than not they don’t.

The other reality is that in a growing market all of the above costs are also continually increasing. If revenue (i.e. rents and condo prices) is also growing, as has been the case here in Toronto for many many years, then developers can generally absorb reasonable increases and continue building. But if revenue stops growing, grows at a slower pace or, worse, shrinks, then feasibility could disappear and development would stop.

Now let’s talk specifically about inclusionary zoning. IZ is typically an incentivized or mandated requirement to provide a certain number of below-market housing units as part of new developments. Affordable housing is important. That’s why a number of cities already have inclusionary zoning policies – though it remains a fairly controversial tool.

From a development feasibility standpoint, a mandatory inclusionary zoning requirement represents a decrease in revenue. There’s now a percentage of the units that can no longer be rented or sold at market prices. And so to maintain the project’s feasibility – because remember development happens on the margin – something has got to change.

There are a few options.

Option One: You could simply try and pay less for the land. As we have talked about many times on this blog, land is supposed to be the residual claimant. Work backwards from revenues and your other costs to determine what can be paid for the land. The problem with this option is that land prices tend to be sticky.

Many or most landowners don’t give a shit about your development pro forma. They often have a number in mind and if you try and tell them that development charges just went up and you can’t pay as much for their land, they’ll simply sit on it and wait for someone else – even if that means waiting for the market to catch up (i.e. waiting for rents to go up).

Option Two: Charge more for the remaining market units. If the market is sufficiently robust, perhaps this is an option. This is one of the reasons why inclusionary zoning often produces more units in markets where there’s already strong demand for new housing.

But it’s also one of the reasons why IZ is controversial. You’re asking the other renters/buyers in the project to effectively subsidize the below market units. And there is research out there (previously posted on this blog) suggesting that in some instances IZ policies have created additional upward pressure on market rents and home prices.

Option Three: Incentives are provided by the municipality to offset some or all of the additional burden placed on the project. This could come in the form of a density bonus, financial contribution, a waiving of other municipal charges/fees, and so on.

Though I have questions about the details, this is something that was proposed in Ontario’s draft regulation (albeit not to the extent that the industry wanted). Now you know why I said and why I believe that these offsets are important to the industry and to overall housing affordability.

My hope with this post was to provide the developer’s perspective, but also take a very matter of fact approach to inclusionary zoning. Most people recognize the importance of affordable and accessible housing. The question is how best to execute.

Photo by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash