Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
I have vivid memories of being in a broker meeting many years ago talking about development land in Vancouver. Our team's comment was that it felt expensive. I mean, Toronto was expensive, and Vancouver was even more. Why? It has one-third the GDP of Toronto. The response we got was something like this: "Yeah, Vancouver may seem pricy, but you just need to get into the market. Then in 5 years you'll be happy you did."
Well it's been more than 5 years and now this is the market:
The market for development sites is being tested by a roughly 50-per-cent drop in value since 2022, according to Mark Goodman. The principal of Goodman Commercial Inc. said Broadway Plan sites, for example, were selling for about $200 per square foot buildable three years ago. Sellers can now expect closer to $100 per square foot buildable, he told BIV. Goodman currently has three Broadway Plan listings.
Of course, Toronto is in a similar situation today. If there's no market for new condominiums and apartment rents aren't growing, then high-density land values are going to feel the impact. But I do think it's interesting that, in some ways, our response was being anchored by our experience in Toronto. What we know, and have accepted, often becomes a baseline for assessing if something else feels expensive or cheap.
I sometimes see the same thing with long-time developers. They remember what they used to sell and/or rent apartments for, and have a harder time accepting today. But this is a positive thing if it compels greater deal scrutiny. Advice like "you just need to get into the market" is never sound. But if you were to take this approach, I would bet that today is a better time than 5 years ago.
Before 2022, being a land developer was a perfectly reasonable business to be in. In fact, it was a lucrative business to be in. What this business entailed was buying development land, getting it rezoned for some higher-and-better use (which here in Toronto usually takes a few years), and then selling it to another developer who would then build the thing that you got approved (or something close to it).
This kind of business practice is sometimes looked down upon by the general public, presumably because it feels like a speculative endeavor that doesn't actually result in anything physical. But another way to look at it is that it's just dividing up the same required work across multiple firms. Projects can take a long time and sometimes investors want their money back.
It is also good practice to look at this option even if you aren't a land developer, per se. One way you do this is by plugging in the market value of your land in your pro forma (not book cost). This way you can tell if your development margin is coming from your land uplift or from the build out. If most of your margin is coming from the former, then it may not be worth taking on the risk of construction.
In any event, the problem with this business is that it no longer works. (At least not in Toronto.) Land prices are moving in the opposite direction. Without a clear understanding of potential revenues (such as condo sales), it's very difficult to value development land. And if you can't accurately value land, then it's pretty challenging to run a business predicated on selling it.
What this means is that the development margin, if any, has shifted away from land toward the full build out (or whatever else your strategy may be). It's not enough to just entitle land. There's lots of entitled land out there right now. That is not the constraint. The constraint is figuring out how to actually make sites feasible. And to do that, you have to roll up your sleeves and really work each project and each asset.
Those who know how to do that will be the ones who come out ahead in the next cycle.
I spent three years living in Philadelphia for grad school and one of the things that I appreciated the most was its walkability. I walked and took transit everywhere. Much of this has to do with the grid system that was laid out for the city in the 17th century. But there are also lots of more recent developments that help to reinforce this fabric.
CityLab, for example, just published this article on Penn's Landing Square, which is a housing complex in Philadelphia's Society Hill neighborhood. Built in 1970 and designed by Canadian-American architect Louis Sauer, the modernist complex occupies an entire 2.37-acre block and contains an assortment of 118 low-rise homes, many of which are connected through small interior laneways.
I have vivid memories of being in a broker meeting many years ago talking about development land in Vancouver. Our team's comment was that it felt expensive. I mean, Toronto was expensive, and Vancouver was even more. Why? It has one-third the GDP of Toronto. The response we got was something like this: "Yeah, Vancouver may seem pricy, but you just need to get into the market. Then in 5 years you'll be happy you did."
Well it's been more than 5 years and now this is the market:
The market for development sites is being tested by a roughly 50-per-cent drop in value since 2022, according to Mark Goodman. The principal of Goodman Commercial Inc. said Broadway Plan sites, for example, were selling for about $200 per square foot buildable three years ago. Sellers can now expect closer to $100 per square foot buildable, he told BIV. Goodman currently has three Broadway Plan listings.
Of course, Toronto is in a similar situation today. If there's no market for new condominiums and apartment rents aren't growing, then high-density land values are going to feel the impact. But I do think it's interesting that, in some ways, our response was being anchored by our experience in Toronto. What we know, and have accepted, often becomes a baseline for assessing if something else feels expensive or cheap.
I sometimes see the same thing with long-time developers. They remember what they used to sell and/or rent apartments for, and have a harder time accepting today. But this is a positive thing if it compels greater deal scrutiny. Advice like "you just need to get into the market" is never sound. But if you were to take this approach, I would bet that today is a better time than 5 years ago.
Before 2022, being a land developer was a perfectly reasonable business to be in. In fact, it was a lucrative business to be in. What this business entailed was buying development land, getting it rezoned for some higher-and-better use (which here in Toronto usually takes a few years), and then selling it to another developer who would then build the thing that you got approved (or something close to it).
This kind of business practice is sometimes looked down upon by the general public, presumably because it feels like a speculative endeavor that doesn't actually result in anything physical. But another way to look at it is that it's just dividing up the same required work across multiple firms. Projects can take a long time and sometimes investors want their money back.
It is also good practice to look at this option even if you aren't a land developer, per se. One way you do this is by plugging in the market value of your land in your pro forma (not book cost). This way you can tell if your development margin is coming from your land uplift or from the build out. If most of your margin is coming from the former, then it may not be worth taking on the risk of construction.
In any event, the problem with this business is that it no longer works. (At least not in Toronto.) Land prices are moving in the opposite direction. Without a clear understanding of potential revenues (such as condo sales), it's very difficult to value development land. And if you can't accurately value land, then it's pretty challenging to run a business predicated on selling it.
What this means is that the development margin, if any, has shifted away from land toward the full build out (or whatever else your strategy may be). It's not enough to just entitle land. There's lots of entitled land out there right now. That is not the constraint. The constraint is figuring out how to actually make sites feasible. And to do that, you have to roll up your sleeves and really work each project and each asset.
Those who know how to do that will be the ones who come out ahead in the next cycle.
I spent three years living in Philadelphia for grad school and one of the things that I appreciated the most was its walkability. I walked and took transit everywhere. Much of this has to do with the grid system that was laid out for the city in the 17th century. But there are also lots of more recent developments that help to reinforce this fabric.
CityLab, for example, just published this article on Penn's Landing Square, which is a housing complex in Philadelphia's Society Hill neighborhood. Built in 1970 and designed by Canadian-American architect Louis Sauer, the modernist complex occupies an entire 2.37-acre block and contains an assortment of 118 low-rise homes, many of which are connected through small interior laneways.
In addition to its handsome architecture, what is noteworthy about Penn's Landing Square is that its site plan makes it quite a dense low-rise development. At 118 homes, this translates into just under 50 units per acre. CityLab estimates that this means the development holds about 174 people per acre (~412 people total), which would make it more dense than Stuyvesant Town in New York (~158 persons per acre).
However, this is based on the assumption that there are almost 3.5 people living in each of these homes. While generally large, I don't know if this is the case. It would be higher than the average US household size. But regardless, from a unit per acre standpoint, it remains a great example of dense, family-oriented, and grade-related housing.
For fun, let's compare this to a more intense form of infill development. Our Junction House project, for instance, contains 151 homes and sits on a 0.48-acre piece of land. This translates into about 315 units per acre. I don't know off hand the average number of occupants per household, but I reckon that, given our larger average suite size, we should be on the higher end compared to most mid-rise condominiums. So I would say that we are probably 400+ people per acre.
It's unfair to compare a single development to an entire neighborhood, such as Stuyvesant Town. Circulation and other open spaces will necessarily pull down your average density. But these individual development examples do speak for themselves. There are many parts of North America where you might find 1 home or a handful of homes per acre of land. At Penn's Landing Square, this number is 50 units per acre. And at Junction House, it's 315 units per acre.
In addition to its handsome architecture, what is noteworthy about Penn's Landing Square is that its site plan makes it quite a dense low-rise development. At 118 homes, this translates into just under 50 units per acre. CityLab estimates that this means the development holds about 174 people per acre (~412 people total), which would make it more dense than Stuyvesant Town in New York (~158 persons per acre).
However, this is based on the assumption that there are almost 3.5 people living in each of these homes. While generally large, I don't know if this is the case. It would be higher than the average US household size. But regardless, from a unit per acre standpoint, it remains a great example of dense, family-oriented, and grade-related housing.
For fun, let's compare this to a more intense form of infill development. Our Junction House project, for instance, contains 151 homes and sits on a 0.48-acre piece of land. This translates into about 315 units per acre. I don't know off hand the average number of occupants per household, but I reckon that, given our larger average suite size, we should be on the higher end compared to most mid-rise condominiums. So I would say that we are probably 400+ people per acre.
It's unfair to compare a single development to an entire neighborhood, such as Stuyvesant Town. Circulation and other open spaces will necessarily pull down your average density. But these individual development examples do speak for themselves. There are many parts of North America where you might find 1 home or a handful of homes per acre of land. At Penn's Landing Square, this number is 50 units per acre. And at Junction House, it's 315 units per acre.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
