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.
Customarily, landlords induce tenants to lease space in a building by offering X months of free rent, as opposed to discounting the actual face rent.
For example, let's assume that the rent for a particular apartment is $3,000 per month or $36,000 per year. Assuming the inducement is equal to one month of free rent, the two logical options are: (1) offer the first month for free and then charge $3,000 for the remaining 11 months or (2) charge $2,750 per month.
Both options equal $33,000 in gross annual rent, but the second option permanently impairs the value of the real estate asset by lowering the overall rent roll on a go-forward basis. So when you capitalize the net operating income of the property, you end up with a lower value. For this reason, option one is the standard approach. You want to offer as much free rent as possible before touching your face rents.
But there can also be local nuances to consider on top of this standard practice. For example, I found this recent tweet from Paul, a multi-family landlord in Los Angeles, interesting. He notes that in rent-controlled buildings in Santa Monica, you also have to be careful not to offer free rent in the first 12 months of a lease. Instead, you need to offer it starting in month 13 or beyond.
His example:
Lease rate of $3,000
Inducement equal to 2 months of free rent ($6,000)
Tenant pays 10 months x $3,000 = $30,000 in Year 1
Apparently, the way Santa Monica looks at this is that the tenant is paying $30,000 / 12 months = $2,500 per month in rent. So, after year one this becomes the Maximum Allowable Rent (MAR) going forward under the city's rent control policies. In other words, the monthly rent becomes the $2,500 number and not the $3,000 number that you thought you had contracted for.
It's an annoying gotcha detail, but it's a meaningful and permanent one until the apartment turns over. Landlord beware. Real estate may be subject to the flows of global capital, but in many ways, it still remains a local business.
Cover photo by Demian Tejeda-Benitez on Unsplash
Real estate may be local, but a lot of markets appear to be correlated. I felt that way this past summer when I was meeting with developers in Paris and I continue to feel this way when I read articles about other markets. Here's a recent one from Building Salt Lake talking about the state of Utah's multi-family market.
Based on the article, cap rates appear to be in the mid-4s for newish product, which is too low right now:
Investors aren’t jumping at the 4.6 cap deals they can typically find in Utah today, she added, when they could get over 5.5 in other major markets.
“Salt Lake, a 4.6 cap, I personally think it’s a little mispriced relative to where else we can put our money,” Schultz said.
This means that there aren't the asset trades to support new development. To justify ground-up development, developers need to see a positive spread between their development yield and the exit cap — one that compensates them for the additional risk of construction. If that spread isn't there, or if it's unclear what it might actually be, development shuts off.
Rents and values coming down also doesn't help:
Back in 2022, which was the peak of the market, you could underwrite double-digit rent growth on a typical 250-apartment deal Downtown. Now, he said, “we’re seeing that effective rents down about 8.25%.”
Overall multifamily values are down 26%, King said, though he added that’s not indicative of every single project or every deal. He also said that decline came after four years of record supply and double-digit rent growth.
What should be clear from these excerpts is that Salt Lake City is not at the point in the cycle where developers are jumping to deliver new ground-up multi-family product. They're at the point in the cycle where firms are looking and hoping to buy distressed assets below replacement cost.
Everybody wants a 3 bedroom condo or apartment until they see what they cost. We've spoken about this before. We know that the barrier is cost (i.e. affordability) and that many cities have more cost-effective alternatives. The result is that developers have a strong incentive to build smaller 1-bedroom apartments. And by strong incentive, I mean that it might be the only way to pencil a new project.
I think some people believe that developers are only doing this to profit maximize and that they could build more family-sized apartments if only they really wanted to. But it's not that simple. There needs to be a market for it at rental rates that can generate a positive margin for developers.
Customarily, landlords induce tenants to lease space in a building by offering X months of free rent, as opposed to discounting the actual face rent.
For example, let's assume that the rent for a particular apartment is $3,000 per month or $36,000 per year. Assuming the inducement is equal to one month of free rent, the two logical options are: (1) offer the first month for free and then charge $3,000 for the remaining 11 months or (2) charge $2,750 per month.
Both options equal $33,000 in gross annual rent, but the second option permanently impairs the value of the real estate asset by lowering the overall rent roll on a go-forward basis. So when you capitalize the net operating income of the property, you end up with a lower value. For this reason, option one is the standard approach. You want to offer as much free rent as possible before touching your face rents.
But there can also be local nuances to consider on top of this standard practice. For example, I found this recent tweet from Paul, a multi-family landlord in Los Angeles, interesting. He notes that in rent-controlled buildings in Santa Monica, you also have to be careful not to offer free rent in the first 12 months of a lease. Instead, you need to offer it starting in month 13 or beyond.
His example:
Lease rate of $3,000
Inducement equal to 2 months of free rent ($6,000)
Tenant pays 10 months x $3,000 = $30,000 in Year 1
Apparently, the way Santa Monica looks at this is that the tenant is paying $30,000 / 12 months = $2,500 per month in rent. So, after year one this becomes the Maximum Allowable Rent (MAR) going forward under the city's rent control policies. In other words, the monthly rent becomes the $2,500 number and not the $3,000 number that you thought you had contracted for.
It's an annoying gotcha detail, but it's a meaningful and permanent one until the apartment turns over. Landlord beware. Real estate may be subject to the flows of global capital, but in many ways, it still remains a local business.
Cover photo by Demian Tejeda-Benitez on Unsplash
Real estate may be local, but a lot of markets appear to be correlated. I felt that way this past summer when I was meeting with developers in Paris and I continue to feel this way when I read articles about other markets. Here's a recent one from Building Salt Lake talking about the state of Utah's multi-family market.
Based on the article, cap rates appear to be in the mid-4s for newish product, which is too low right now:
Investors aren’t jumping at the 4.6 cap deals they can typically find in Utah today, she added, when they could get over 5.5 in other major markets.
“Salt Lake, a 4.6 cap, I personally think it’s a little mispriced relative to where else we can put our money,” Schultz said.
This means that there aren't the asset trades to support new development. To justify ground-up development, developers need to see a positive spread between their development yield and the exit cap — one that compensates them for the additional risk of construction. If that spread isn't there, or if it's unclear what it might actually be, development shuts off.
Rents and values coming down also doesn't help:
Back in 2022, which was the peak of the market, you could underwrite double-digit rent growth on a typical 250-apartment deal Downtown. Now, he said, “we’re seeing that effective rents down about 8.25%.”
Overall multifamily values are down 26%, King said, though he added that’s not indicative of every single project or every deal. He also said that decline came after four years of record supply and double-digit rent growth.
What should be clear from these excerpts is that Salt Lake City is not at the point in the cycle where developers are jumping to deliver new ground-up multi-family product. They're at the point in the cycle where firms are looking and hoping to buy distressed assets below replacement cost.
Everybody wants a 3 bedroom condo or apartment until they see what they cost. We've spoken about this before. We know that the barrier is cost (i.e. affordability) and that many cities have more cost-effective alternatives. The result is that developers have a strong incentive to build smaller 1-bedroom apartments. And by strong incentive, I mean that it might be the only way to pencil a new project.
I think some people believe that developers are only doing this to profit maximize and that they could build more family-sized apartments if only they really wanted to. But it's not that simple. There needs to be a market for it at rental rates that can generate a positive margin for developers.
Cover photo by Saul Flores on Unsplash
To show just how strong these market forces are, here's a chart from Bobby Fijan showing how Austin has changed its unit mix over the past 25 years. From 2000 to 2005, more than 50% of new apartments were 2 beds. But from 2021 to 2025, this shared dropped to less than 25%, and studio and 1 beds now make up nearly 80% of the new multi-family market.
This is the new construction market in the vast majority of North American cities today.
Cover photo by Jeremy Doddridge on Unsplash
Cover photo by Saul Flores on Unsplash
To show just how strong these market forces are, here's a chart from Bobby Fijan showing how Austin has changed its unit mix over the past 25 years. From 2000 to 2005, more than 50% of new apartments were 2 beds. But from 2021 to 2025, this shared dropped to less than 25%, and studio and 1 beds now make up nearly 80% of the new multi-family market.
This is the new construction market in the vast majority of North American cities today.
Cover photo by Jeremy Doddridge on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
