Subscribe
Here is a recent chart from Mike Moffat showing how much development charges have increased in the City of Toronto from 2009 to today:
We've, of course, seen this before. Back in 2020, I shared an article that developer Urban Capital published where they did a cost comparison between a project they had done in 2005 and a project they were doing in 2020. What they uncovered was that development charges alone had increased by 3,244%! The most of any line item in their pro forma.
Development charges over the last real estate cycle have been an insidious problem. Meaning, the industry knew they were crazy high, and we were all trying to be vocal about it, but let's face it -- the general public doesn't have a lot of sympathy for developers complaining about high fees. They are also largely hidden from purchasers and renters. The charges just get lumped in.
If our industry could figure out how to be more transparent and separate out these charges, much like a sales tax, I think it would go a long way to showing consumers what they're actually paying when it comes to new housing. And then maybe something positive would happen. Because this is a major reason why new housing has gotten so expensive in this region.
Can you imagine if property taxes had increased by 3,244% over the last 15 years? I can't. Because no one would have ever allowed that to happen.
For better and for worse, the current market is going to serve as a rude awakening for municipalities. We've reached the breaking point. The housing market is, as we've talked about, in a "state of economic lockdown." And when people don't buy new homes, it means developers no longer have the money to pay development charges.
Here is an interesting chart, from Mike Moffat, that looks at housing completions -- both ownership and rental -- in the province of Ontario. The way to read this chart is that, for each date, you are looking at completions for the previous 10 years. (It says 12, but that seems to be a mistake.) For example, Q4-1964, which is the start of this chart, equals all homes built between Q1-1955 and Q4-1964.
Three things will probably immediately stand out to you:
Here is a recent chart from Mike Moffat showing how much development charges have increased in the City of Toronto from 2009 to today:
We've, of course, seen this before. Back in 2020, I shared an article that developer Urban Capital published where they did a cost comparison between a project they had done in 2005 and a project they were doing in 2020. What they uncovered was that development charges alone had increased by 3,244%! The most of any line item in their pro forma.
Development charges over the last real estate cycle have been an insidious problem. Meaning, the industry knew they were crazy high, and we were all trying to be vocal about it, but let's face it -- the general public doesn't have a lot of sympathy for developers complaining about high fees. They are also largely hidden from purchasers and renters. The charges just get lumped in.
If our industry could figure out how to be more transparent and separate out these charges, much like a sales tax, I think it would go a long way to showing consumers what they're actually paying when it comes to new housing. And then maybe something positive would happen. Because this is a major reason why new housing has gotten so expensive in this region.
Can you imagine if property taxes had increased by 3,244% over the last 15 years? I can't. Because no one would have ever allowed that to happen.
For better and for worse, the current market is going to serve as a rude awakening for municipalities. We've reached the breaking point. The housing market is, as we've talked about, in a "state of economic lockdown." And when people don't buy new homes, it means developers no longer have the money to pay development charges.
Here is an interesting chart, from Mike Moffat, that looks at housing completions -- both ownership and rental -- in the province of Ontario. The way to read this chart is that, for each date, you are looking at completions for the previous 10 years. (It says 12, but that seems to be a mistake.) For example, Q4-1964, which is the start of this chart, equals all homes built between Q1-1955 and Q4-1964.
Three things will probably immediately stand out to you:
It is disappointing to me that we often vilify all condominiums as being "luxury condos." I think the rhetoric is disingenuous and I think it distracts us from finding more productive solutions. As Mike Moffatt points out in this thread, if you look at virtually all major cities in Canada, the most affordable housing options are going to be condominiums and not low-rise freehold houses.
In his case, he looked at current for sale listings in London, Ontario, and found that for homes under $400k, about 81% of them were condominiums, and for homes over $1,200,000, only 4% of them were condominiums. Again: the real "luxury homes" are the low-rise houses that not the condos.
Now to be fair, John Pasalis is not wrong in responding to the thread and saying that on a per pound basis, or a per square foot basis, condominiums are actually more expensive. I've been saying this for years on the blog. When measured this way, mid-rise buildings are one of if not the most expensive housing typologies.
So John's argument is that, while condominiums may be the more affordable option for 1-2 person households, if you're a family in need of more space, low-rise housing is likely going to be more affordable for you on a per square foot basis. And I would agree with this statement.
The problem with this approach in the real world, though, is that people don't buy and afford homes based on this metric. You can't go to a bank and say, "I want to buy this house for $1.7 million dollars because it's only $680 per square foot when I include the basement, and that's better value than this 700 square foot condominium selling for $1,400 psf."
Sorry, the bank is going to tell you what total price you can afford based on your income. And that's why condominiums in our market have tended to serve as a critical entry point for first-time buyers. They're the most affordable option in terms of their total sale price.
So in my view, labelling all condominiums as "luxury" is not exactly productive. It ignores their role in providing more affordable homes; it overlooks the supply constraint that low-rise houses represent in most of our cities; and it's a distraction from the more systemic issue at hand: how do we make housing more affordable for everyone, including families?
Photo by Marcos Paulo Prado on Unsplash
We built a lot of multi-family housing in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, we built more than we're building right now and that wasn't just the case in Toronto and Ontario. In Canada as a whole, the majority of building permits (60%) issued between 1962 and 1973 were for multi-family buildings. More specifically though, this was a rental apartment boom, as opposed to a condominium boom.
We then said: "Nah, let's not build so many apartments anymore. Let's go back to building more single-family houses."
And that's what we did -- by a fairly wide margin -- until the early 2000s when the next great multi-family boom started to take hold. This time, though, it developed into a condominium boom.
Both multi-family booms have mirrored periods of overall economic expansion. But you also need to look at what government was doing. In the 1960s and 1970s we made it attractive to build rental housing (whereas today it's a very challenging asset class to underwrite). And then more recently, we decided that much of our growth should happen in existing built-up urban areas. That generally means more multi.
But multi-family is a fairly broad term. Are we talking about 4-storey walk-ups or are we talking about 40-storey tall buildings? For those of you who are able to look through this chart to what's happening in the market, you'll know that we are far more effective at the latter. We have a lot of work to do when it comes to the in-between housing scales.
It is disappointing to me that we often vilify all condominiums as being "luxury condos." I think the rhetoric is disingenuous and I think it distracts us from finding more productive solutions. As Mike Moffatt points out in this thread, if you look at virtually all major cities in Canada, the most affordable housing options are going to be condominiums and not low-rise freehold houses.
In his case, he looked at current for sale listings in London, Ontario, and found that for homes under $400k, about 81% of them were condominiums, and for homes over $1,200,000, only 4% of them were condominiums. Again: the real "luxury homes" are the low-rise houses that not the condos.
Now to be fair, John Pasalis is not wrong in responding to the thread and saying that on a per pound basis, or a per square foot basis, condominiums are actually more expensive. I've been saying this for years on the blog. When measured this way, mid-rise buildings are one of if not the most expensive housing typologies.
So John's argument is that, while condominiums may be the more affordable option for 1-2 person households, if you're a family in need of more space, low-rise housing is likely going to be more affordable for you on a per square foot basis. And I would agree with this statement.
The problem with this approach in the real world, though, is that people don't buy and afford homes based on this metric. You can't go to a bank and say, "I want to buy this house for $1.7 million dollars because it's only $680 per square foot when I include the basement, and that's better value than this 700 square foot condominium selling for $1,400 psf."
Sorry, the bank is going to tell you what total price you can afford based on your income. And that's why condominiums in our market have tended to serve as a critical entry point for first-time buyers. They're the most affordable option in terms of their total sale price.
So in my view, labelling all condominiums as "luxury" is not exactly productive. It ignores their role in providing more affordable homes; it overlooks the supply constraint that low-rise houses represent in most of our cities; and it's a distraction from the more systemic issue at hand: how do we make housing more affordable for everyone, including families?
Photo by Marcos Paulo Prado on Unsplash
We built a lot of multi-family housing in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, we built more than we're building right now and that wasn't just the case in Toronto and Ontario. In Canada as a whole, the majority of building permits (60%) issued between 1962 and 1973 were for multi-family buildings. More specifically though, this was a rental apartment boom, as opposed to a condominium boom.
We then said: "Nah, let's not build so many apartments anymore. Let's go back to building more single-family houses."
And that's what we did -- by a fairly wide margin -- until the early 2000s when the next great multi-family boom started to take hold. This time, though, it developed into a condominium boom.
Both multi-family booms have mirrored periods of overall economic expansion. But you also need to look at what government was doing. In the 1960s and 1970s we made it attractive to build rental housing (whereas today it's a very challenging asset class to underwrite). And then more recently, we decided that much of our growth should happen in existing built-up urban areas. That generally means more multi.
But multi-family is a fairly broad term. Are we talking about 4-storey walk-ups or are we talking about 40-storey tall buildings? For those of you who are able to look through this chart to what's happening in the market, you'll know that we are far more effective at the latter. We have a lot of work to do when it comes to the in-between housing scales.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
