Here's a potential scenario:

“When you have investors competing with first-time buyers who walk in with a couple of [baby] strollers, typically the investor is going to win,” Mr. Pasalis says. “They are well capitalized. They can pay a higher price. And this is why our home ownership rate is declining, because more and more homes are actually going into the hands of investors who rent them out, and amplifying home and amplifying condo prices. We are seeing that.”

But let's break this down a little.

Where are these first-time buyers walking into? Is it a resale home showing or is it a pre-construction showroom? If it's the latter, then we know it's going to be difficult / atypical for them to make a buy decision so far in advance. They already have multiple strollers in hand, do they want to wait 4-7 years for their pre-construction home to be ready?

I would also add that in our current environment -- where investor demand for pre-construction homes has waned significantly -- the development industry has not seen a marked uptick in end-user demand. Why are they not stepping up now that they're not being outbid by investors? In my opinion, it's an ideal time to buy!

One reason could be that people who own strollers still largely prefer low-rise housing. Maybe it's for reasons of affordability, maybe it's a cultural bias, or maybe it's a genuine preference. Either way, let's turn our attention to resale homes. In this scenario, who is likely to pay the most?

If you're an investor, then you are looking for a specific yield. And so in theory, it should be a mostly dispassionate decision: "Here's the most that I can pay in order to meet my minimum returns. Do not exceed." But the question is whether is this is going to be more or less than what a stroller-owning group of people would pay.

The answer is probably that it depends. However, if the answer is that the investor wins and they then turn around and rent it to people who own strollers, is this actually a problem? And if this same investor happens to own 25 other rental homes and they're all rented to people who own strollers, is this an even greater problem?

I suppose it is a problem if you're worried about Canada's homeownership rate, which has in fact declined from about 69% (in 2011) to 66.5% (in 2021). But what does this even mean? Is a higher homeownership rate always better? Does Canada have a target number? As of February of this year, the homeownership rate in Switzerland was only about 36.3%. And the last time I checked, it was still a rich country.

There is nothing wrong with renting. I know wealthy people who have opted to rent their entire life because they enjoyed the flexibility and/or had better places to put their money.

All of this said, the argument in the above scenario is that, but for investors outbidding people with strollers, these homes would be more affordable and that would in turn increase the homeownership rate. It's a similar argument to, but for foreign buyers or but for Airbnbs, these homes would be more affordable.

But in a city like Toronto, we are building very little in the way of new low-rise houses. New supply is virtually non-existent. Similarly in Seattle, they are now building more accessory dwelling units than they are single-family houses. So it is any wonder that demand is constantly outstripping supply and that prices are being bid up?

In my opinion, a better solution is to rethink how we build our low-rise neighborhoods. And here and here are two good places to start.

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.

I am positive that it had absolutely nothing to do with this post about fourplex feasibility, but I was happy to receive this notice in the mail yesterday:

It is a public meeting notice for the City of Toronto's proposed multiplex policies (defined as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes). And as you can see from the highlighted section, they're looking, among other things, to make this form of housing exempt from floor space index maximums.

Good.

I don't like this "where applicable" business, but I'm going to conveniently ignore that for now and just say that this is positive. Removing density maximums is a mandatory ingredient for helping to make this type of housing feasible.

No FSI maximums. No DCs. And let's modernize how HST is charged on new rental housing.