Here's some data (via Jeremy Withers) explaining that a large portion -- about 61% -- of new condominiums built in Ontario between 2016 and 2021 were not owner-occupied. In the case of low-rise houses, the figure is lower -- about 24%.
Now, the premise of Jeremy's tweet storm is that non-owner-occupied housing is bad and that the government should be doing more to discourage this. Simply taxing and restricting foreign buyers is not enough (and I agree that this is mostly symbolic).
But is non-owner occupied really such a bad thing?
First of all, non-owner occupied implies that somebody else is renting the place. I don't think that a significant chunk of these homes are being left vacant. So isn't the fact that somewhere around 61% of all new condominium apartments are becoming rental housing something that is potentially positive?
One counter argument would be that these investors are bidding up new home prices and squeezing out end users. But that brings me to my second point: small-scale individual investors are a critical ingredient in the delivery of new condominium housing in Ontario.
Here's some data (via Jeremy Withers) explaining that a large portion -- about 61% -- of new condominiums built in Ontario between 2016 and 2021 were not owner-occupied. In the case of low-rise houses, the figure is lower -- about 24%.
Now, the premise of Jeremy's tweet storm is that non-owner-occupied housing is bad and that the government should be doing more to discourage this. Simply taxing and restricting foreign buyers is not enough (and I agree that this is mostly symbolic).
But is non-owner occupied really such a bad thing?
First of all, non-owner occupied implies that somebody else is renting the place. I don't think that a significant chunk of these homes are being left vacant. So isn't the fact that somewhere around 61% of all new condominium apartments are becoming rental housing something that is potentially positive?
One counter argument would be that these investors are bidding up new home prices and squeezing out end users. But that brings me to my second point: small-scale individual investors are a critical ingredient in the delivery of new condominium housing in Ontario.
This point cannot be overstated.
The lender requirement to pre-sell suites in order to obtain construction financing means that developers rely heavily on buyers who are willing to purchase many many years before occupancy. And this is generally a lot more challenging for end users, as we have talked about many times before.
So if it weren't for investors, I am certain that we would see a lot less new housing getting built. And in turn, that would mean a lot less new rental housing getting built.
We have spoken about this topic -- of larger family-sized suites -- many times before on the blog. And my argument then, as it is now, is that the largest barrier is cost. We can talk about cultural biases (which I do think exist in North America) and, sure, we can talk about how to better design for families. But until we solve the problem of costs or until low-rise housing gets so prohibitively expensive that it tips the scales in favor of multi-family buildings, I'm not sure we're going to see a meaningful shift.
To be fair, it does appear that the number of families living in apartments and condominiums is increasing here in Toronto. My neighbor is one data point. However, broadly speaking, I don't think it's happening with the "larger family-sized suites" that most people imagine in their minds when they talk about this opportunity.
So how do we address this? There are a number of interesting ideas in the above Twitter thread that I would encourage you to check out. Ratcheting down or eliminating development charges (and other government levies) on larger suites is one of them. But what is obvious is that this is a challenging problem to solve. So the brutally honest answer is that I don't really know what will be most effective. But here are three potential places to start.
As-of-right mid-rise buildings
Remove the barriers to building more mid-rise. One irony of mid-rise buildings is that they are probably the most desirable form of multi-family housing and yet they're the most expensive to build. A lot of this has to do with construction costs and other unavoidable diseconomies of scale, but there are other things we can do. In my view, we should target to make all mid-rise buildings fully as-of-right. This means no rezoning costs, no community meetings, and overall simpler designs. Instead, the rough process should be: buy site, work on permit drawings, and start marketing new homes.
This is also something that we talk a lot about on this blog. But most people outside of the industry don't think of it in this way, or they don't care. The mantra is that "growth pays for growth", which obviously sounds good. Tax new housing based on its impacts. But in reality this is not what's happening. What is happening is that "growth pays for as much as possible as long as new home prices keep rising." And it persists partially because nobody except evil developers see these large bills. But if we really want to make new housing more affordable and if we really want to encourage more families in new multi-family buildings, then we need a more equitable solution.
Financing new family-sized homes
The way we finance new homes impacts the kind of housing that gets built. Here in Toronto, new condominium projects generally require a certain percentage of pre-sales, because construction lenders want as much certainty as possible that they will get their money back upon completion. In theory, it also reduces the chance of overbuilding because you've pre-sold most/all of the homes. So there are obvious benefits to this approach. However, the problem is that you need people to now buy in advance. And oftentimes, the people buying early aren't families who expect to need 3 bedrooms in 5.2 years. Should there be another financing solution for larger homes?
Once again, these are just three potential places to start. But I think they're all critically important. If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please leave them in comment section below.
One criticism that you will sometimes hear about development is that the construction of new housing can spur gentrification. The thinking, I think, is that when you create new market-rate housing, richer people will then move in and the area will begin (or continue) its ascent upwards.
If on the other hand, one were to just stop developing new housing, then the neighborhood would remain stable and static and the fear of gentrification would simply go away. But the flaw in this line of thinking is that it assumes no infill development equals some sort of urban homeostasis.
Cities are constantly changing. The reality is that what we are talking about, particularly in the case of low-rise single-family areas, is that we want the physical character of neighborhoods to remain more or less the same. But what happens on the inside is whatever.
What you are seeing here are 4 electricity meters, meaning that at some point this structure housed 4 separate homes. But 3 of the 4 meters have now been removed, which presumably means that this structure has been converted (probably back) to a single-family home. So this is 4 homes being reduced to 1.
I don't know what this place looks like on the outside, but I'm going to guess that not much has changed in terms of its physical character. It probably looks about the same. But this is still gentrification; it is still an example of a neighborhood moving upmarket.
The irony is that we tend to be generally okay with this change. We are okay with reducing the number of homes in a neighborhood so long as it happens in a largely inconspicuous and convenient way. But what we are (sometimes) not okay with is increasing the number of homes in a neighborhood. Apparently that creates too much pressure on the existing housing stock.
This point cannot be overstated.
The lender requirement to pre-sell suites in order to obtain construction financing means that developers rely heavily on buyers who are willing to purchase many many years before occupancy. And this is generally a lot more challenging for end users, as we have talked about many times before.
So if it weren't for investors, I am certain that we would see a lot less new housing getting built. And in turn, that would mean a lot less new rental housing getting built.
We have spoken about this topic -- of larger family-sized suites -- many times before on the blog. And my argument then, as it is now, is that the largest barrier is cost. We can talk about cultural biases (which I do think exist in North America) and, sure, we can talk about how to better design for families. But until we solve the problem of costs or until low-rise housing gets so prohibitively expensive that it tips the scales in favor of multi-family buildings, I'm not sure we're going to see a meaningful shift.
To be fair, it does appear that the number of families living in apartments and condominiums is increasing here in Toronto. My neighbor is one data point. However, broadly speaking, I don't think it's happening with the "larger family-sized suites" that most people imagine in their minds when they talk about this opportunity.
So how do we address this? There are a number of interesting ideas in the above Twitter thread that I would encourage you to check out. Ratcheting down or eliminating development charges (and other government levies) on larger suites is one of them. But what is obvious is that this is a challenging problem to solve. So the brutally honest answer is that I don't really know what will be most effective. But here are three potential places to start.
As-of-right mid-rise buildings
Remove the barriers to building more mid-rise. One irony of mid-rise buildings is that they are probably the most desirable form of multi-family housing and yet they're the most expensive to build. A lot of this has to do with construction costs and other unavoidable diseconomies of scale, but there are other things we can do. In my view, we should target to make all mid-rise buildings fully as-of-right. This means no rezoning costs, no community meetings, and overall simpler designs. Instead, the rough process should be: buy site, work on permit drawings, and start marketing new homes.
This is also something that we talk a lot about on this blog. But most people outside of the industry don't think of it in this way, or they don't care. The mantra is that "growth pays for growth", which obviously sounds good. Tax new housing based on its impacts. But in reality this is not what's happening. What is happening is that "growth pays for as much as possible as long as new home prices keep rising." And it persists partially because nobody except evil developers see these large bills. But if we really want to make new housing more affordable and if we really want to encourage more families in new multi-family buildings, then we need a more equitable solution.
Financing new family-sized homes
The way we finance new homes impacts the kind of housing that gets built. Here in Toronto, new condominium projects generally require a certain percentage of pre-sales, because construction lenders want as much certainty as possible that they will get their money back upon completion. In theory, it also reduces the chance of overbuilding because you've pre-sold most/all of the homes. So there are obvious benefits to this approach. However, the problem is that you need people to now buy in advance. And oftentimes, the people buying early aren't families who expect to need 3 bedrooms in 5.2 years. Should there be another financing solution for larger homes?
Once again, these are just three potential places to start. But I think they're all critically important. If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please leave them in comment section below.
One criticism that you will sometimes hear about development is that the construction of new housing can spur gentrification. The thinking, I think, is that when you create new market-rate housing, richer people will then move in and the area will begin (or continue) its ascent upwards.
If on the other hand, one were to just stop developing new housing, then the neighborhood would remain stable and static and the fear of gentrification would simply go away. But the flaw in this line of thinking is that it assumes no infill development equals some sort of urban homeostasis.
Cities are constantly changing. The reality is that what we are talking about, particularly in the case of low-rise single-family areas, is that we want the physical character of neighborhoods to remain more or less the same. But what happens on the inside is whatever.
What you are seeing here are 4 electricity meters, meaning that at some point this structure housed 4 separate homes. But 3 of the 4 meters have now been removed, which presumably means that this structure has been converted (probably back) to a single-family home. So this is 4 homes being reduced to 1.
I don't know what this place looks like on the outside, but I'm going to guess that not much has changed in terms of its physical character. It probably looks about the same. But this is still gentrification; it is still an example of a neighborhood moving upmarket.
The irony is that we tend to be generally okay with this change. We are okay with reducing the number of homes in a neighborhood so long as it happens in a largely inconspicuous and convenient way. But what we are (sometimes) not okay with is increasing the number of homes in a neighborhood. Apparently that creates too much pressure on the existing housing stock.
