Here is a chart from a recent Bloomberg article summarizing who owns single-family houses in the US.

As of Q1-2024, about 69% were owner-occupied, about 26.6% were owned by small landlords (1-9 homes), and the rest were owned by what many are now calling "corporate landlords."

The point of this graph was to show that, despite getting a lot of political attention, corporate landlords still own very little. Let's call it sub 4%, excluding iBuying companies like OpenDoor. So how much of a problem is this, really?

Smaller landlords control much more of the US market. And at the end of the day, a house owned by a small landlord versus a corporate landlord doesn't change the supply-demand balance of a market. It still represents an available home.

The first and more important problem to solve is overall housing supply. Because that does change the supply-demand balance of a market. And once again, there's no shortage of data to support the finding that increased supply tends to moderate rental growth.

For the record, I also dislike using the term home to refer to single-family houses. Home is not a housing type. It is simply a place where people live permanently. So whenever I see a title like "US homes," I get confused, because I don't actually know what they're referring to.

If you read the article, it would appear they're only talking about single-family houses. But implying that these are the only kind of home feels to me like an anachronism.

Here's an interesting, though not shocking, chart from a recent Globe and Mail article talking about "Canada's dysfunctional housing market." What is noteworthy is that Toronto is dead last when it comes to the number of new 3+ bedroom homes built between 2016 and 2011.

Peterborough, for example, is a census metropolitan area with somewhere around 130,000 people. And yet, based on this data, it is building more family-sized homes than Toronto.

Why this is not surprising is that the vast majority of new homes now built in Toronto are high-density and built out of reinforced concrete. This means that they are relatively expensive on a per square foot basis.

In fact, you could argue that mid-rise housing -- the exact high-density type that is supposed to be most attractive to families -- is the most expensive to build. What this means is that if you're building a 3+ bedroom home in this way, it's not going to be affordable to most.

It also means that people are going to go shopping elsewhere: Ottawa, York, Simcoe, Durham, and so on. The expected market outcome is decentralization. But in my mind, this raises an important question: Is this what people really want?

This is a great debate. And many will argue that grade-related suburban housing is exactly what people want. What we are seeing is a result of raw consumer preference.

However, the costs are so skewed in favor of low-rise housing, that I think it's hard to say with absolute certainty the degree in which this is true. What if higher-density 3+ bedroom homes were the cheaper option? My bet is that we would see a lot more centralization.

The development charge rate for a 2+ bedroom apartment in the City of Toronto is currently $80,690 per unit (effective June 6, 2024). As development charges work, this is supposed to pay for the growth-related impacts of adding a 2+ bedroom apartment in the city.

However, the above chart suggests that there are also impacts to not building that 2 or 3 bedroom apartment in an already developed area next to existing infrastructure. It means the home goes somewhere else (further away) or doesn't get built at all.

Both of these outcomes also have costs.

The thing that we have been talking about for many months on this blog finally happened: Toronto City Council voted (18-7) in favor of allowing fourplexes as-of-right across all residential areas of the city. (If you're curious, here is a map of which Councillors voted yes and which ones voted no. It's not all that surprising.)

This is a major accomplishment and milestone for Toronto. So congratulations to everyone who has been working to make this happen. But of course, now is when the rubber hits the road: Will the market actually build this new housing typology (for Toronto) at scale? Is it actually feasible?

Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers came out this morning saying that the answer is no. These multiplexes aren't feasible and it is "not going to solve our housing crisis or even come close." He may be right, but I think a lot of people -- myself included -- are now looking closely at their feasibility.

In fact, this morning I ran into a lender on the street -- look what happens when you come into the office -- that is seeing if these can be built using CMHC financing. And this is just one example of the work happening all over the city right now.

There is also the question of scale. Small development projects are challenging. The general rule of thumb is that if you have the resources, you should build as big as you possibly can to drive economies of scale. So if these are actually feasible, who will want to build them?

The margins on a build like this are almost certainly going to be somewhere between negative and marginally positive. But I still think there's something to be said about being directionally right. There's more work to be done and these policies will likely get adjusted, but I think that's just fine as long as we're moving forward.

And that's what we're doing today.

Here is a chart from a recent Bloomberg article summarizing who owns single-family houses in the US.

As of Q1-2024, about 69% were owner-occupied, about 26.6% were owned by small landlords (1-9 homes), and the rest were owned by what many are now calling "corporate landlords."

The point of this graph was to show that, despite getting a lot of political attention, corporate landlords still own very little. Let's call it sub 4%, excluding iBuying companies like OpenDoor. So how much of a problem is this, really?

Smaller landlords control much more of the US market. And at the end of the day, a house owned by a small landlord versus a corporate landlord doesn't change the supply-demand balance of a market. It still represents an available home.

The first and more important problem to solve is overall housing supply. Because that does change the supply-demand balance of a market. And once again, there's no shortage of data to support the finding that increased supply tends to moderate rental growth.

For the record, I also dislike using the term home to refer to single-family houses. Home is not a housing type. It is simply a place where people live permanently. So whenever I see a title like "US homes," I get confused, because I don't actually know what they're referring to.

If you read the article, it would appear they're only talking about single-family houses. But implying that these are the only kind of home feels to me like an anachronism.

Here's an interesting, though not shocking, chart from a recent Globe and Mail article talking about "Canada's dysfunctional housing market." What is noteworthy is that Toronto is dead last when it comes to the number of new 3+ bedroom homes built between 2016 and 2011.

Peterborough, for example, is a census metropolitan area with somewhere around 130,000 people. And yet, based on this data, it is building more family-sized homes than Toronto.

Why this is not surprising is that the vast majority of new homes now built in Toronto are high-density and built out of reinforced concrete. This means that they are relatively expensive on a per square foot basis.

In fact, you could argue that mid-rise housing -- the exact high-density type that is supposed to be most attractive to families -- is the most expensive to build. What this means is that if you're building a 3+ bedroom home in this way, it's not going to be affordable to most.

It also means that people are going to go shopping elsewhere: Ottawa, York, Simcoe, Durham, and so on. The expected market outcome is decentralization. But in my mind, this raises an important question: Is this what people really want?

This is a great debate. And many will argue that grade-related suburban housing is exactly what people want. What we are seeing is a result of raw consumer preference.

However, the costs are so skewed in favor of low-rise housing, that I think it's hard to say with absolute certainty the degree in which this is true. What if higher-density 3+ bedroom homes were the cheaper option? My bet is that we would see a lot more centralization.

The development charge rate for a 2+ bedroom apartment in the City of Toronto is currently $80,690 per unit (effective June 6, 2024). As development charges work, this is supposed to pay for the growth-related impacts of adding a 2+ bedroom apartment in the city.

However, the above chart suggests that there are also impacts to not building that 2 or 3 bedroom apartment in an already developed area next to existing infrastructure. It means the home goes somewhere else (further away) or doesn't get built at all.

Both of these outcomes also have costs.

The thing that we have been talking about for many months on this blog finally happened: Toronto City Council voted (18-7) in favor of allowing fourplexes as-of-right across all residential areas of the city. (If you're curious, here is a map of which Councillors voted yes and which ones voted no. It's not all that surprising.)

This is a major accomplishment and milestone for Toronto. So congratulations to everyone who has been working to make this happen. But of course, now is when the rubber hits the road: Will the market actually build this new housing typology (for Toronto) at scale? Is it actually feasible?

Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers came out this morning saying that the answer is no. These multiplexes aren't feasible and it is "not going to solve our housing crisis or even come close." He may be right, but I think a lot of people -- myself included -- are now looking closely at their feasibility.

In fact, this morning I ran into a lender on the street -- look what happens when you come into the office -- that is seeing if these can be built using CMHC financing. And this is just one example of the work happening all over the city right now.

There is also the question of scale. Small development projects are challenging. The general rule of thumb is that if you have the resources, you should build as big as you possibly can to drive economies of scale. So if these are actually feasible, who will want to build them?

The margins on a build like this are almost certainly going to be somewhere between negative and marginally positive. But I still think there's something to be said about being directionally right. There's more work to be done and these policies will likely get adjusted, but I think that's just fine as long as we're moving forward.

And that's what we're doing today.