Join >4.5k subscribers and stay updated by getting the latest posts delivered directly to your inbox.
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.
Cover photo by Angie on
This is an important chart taken from this recent article by Steve Lafleur talking about the need for Canada to "bulk up." What it obviously shows is that housing completions and population growth have generally been diverging in Canada since the 1970s.
Back then, we were building about 200,000 homes a year and, today, we're building slightly under that. Of course, our population has also grown dramatically during this time period, as has the number of people who move to Canada each year. The result is that the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation estimates that we'll have a housing shortage of approximately 3.5 million homes by 2030.
But we already knew this. Big numbers are often thrown around in studies. I think the more important question is: How do we reconcile this massive shortage with the fact that, in cities like Toronto, we have lots of zoned land ready for the construction of new housing (but that isn't financially feasible) and lots of unsold homes that aren't selling right now?
Do we really have a shortage?
Well, Toronto is just one specific market, and I can't speak to all the dynamics playing out across the country and the world. But it strikes me that what's missing from the above chart, and this discussion in general, are considerations around (1) housing type and (2) affordability. And by type, I'm largely thinking about size, as it's closely linked to affordability.
If what we're building is too expensive for most people and unsuitable for their household needs, then yes, I guess that would mean we have a shortage of housing.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
