One of the reasons why we are seeing more multiplexes in Toronto (smaller infill buildings with less than seven homes) is that the city has waived development charges and parkland dedication fees on this scale of new housing.
This has helped enormously; without these changes, we'd be seeing far fewer of these housing projects being built.
But here's the odd thing about this exemption: if you build even one more home in the same building, the project is now subject to development charges on all of the homes (minus any credits you might receive for existing homes on the site).
Adding a seventh unit shouldn't suddenly trigger hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for the first six. This makes zero sense:
It creates a disincentive to build incrementally more homes on sites that can accommodate them.
It creates a bias toward multiplexes (also known as "houseplexes") and away from apartments. The housing type shouldn't matter. We're talking about homes.
It perpetuates the "missing middle" problem. Build small or build big enough to shoulder the additional costs and regulatory burden.
If we're waiving DCs on sixplexes, why not at least waive them for the first six homes on every site? Better yet, waive them on even more homes. This is just one specific example of the hurdles I was talking about yesterday.
Note: My understanding is that the City of Toronto is currently looking to remove this DC cliff and implement a universal first-six-free rule.
The Globe and Mail just published this piece about job cuts across the real estate industry. And pictured in the article is my friend Norm Li, who runs a renowned visualization company here in Toronto, but just recently had to lay off 75% of his team.
This is sad — and quite a departure from the way things were before 2022. You used to have to book Norm and his team many months in advance just to get in the queue. That's how busy they were creating visual content for the architecture and development industry.
But there's not much you can do when the market more or less shut offs. And Norm is not alone. The article estimates that there are some 536,300 jobs in the new construction sector in Canada. And based on the way the above chart is looking, up to 170,000 of these jobs are currently at risk of disappearing.
If you look at the comment section of the article you'll find that a lot of people either couldn't care less or actually relish the fact that the real estate industry is shedding jobs. A lot of people responded with "good." This is not at all surprising (and not just because it's, you know, a comment section). Homes remain unaffordable in Canada.
In the first quarter of this year, RBC estimated that the share of income needed to cover homeownership costs in Toronto is still averaging over 60%. And so for many/most people, the new construction sector isn't a source of personal utility; it's a creator of things that aren't affordable.
Oh, you can't make money anymore? Good.
But here's a better kind of "good" to consider: as painful as the current conditions are for everyone in the industry — myself included — the market is being forced into a reset. Among many other things, municipalities are rethinking their development charges, construction costs are coming down, and nearly every developer seems to be pivoting their new-home business toward bona fide end users (as opposed to investors).
What I think this means is that when the market does return — and it, of course, will — it is highly likely that it will be rooted in sounder fundamentals. And this, I would say, is good.
Cover photo by Maarten van den Heuvel on Unsplash; pre-construction home sales chart from the Globe and Mail
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.