The Liberals just announced that, if elected, they will form a new entity called Building Canada Homes (BCH) which will, "get the federal government back in the business of building homes." Broadly speaking, this new entity is proposed to have three key functions: it will build affordable housing at scale (including on public land), it will help to "catalyze" the private sector, and it will provide financing to affordable housing developers. There's a lot that is interesting in the policy teaser, but let's focus on function number one today: Do governments make good developers?
The outlined intent is that BCH will "act as a developer to build affordable housing" and "partner with builders for the construction phase of projects." So it sounds like they will not be constructors. The language they use also suggests that BCH will be an acquirer of land. Sometimes it will develop on already-owned public land, but in other cases it will go out and buy new land, sometimes offering it back to the market via land leases.
Acquiring new land will be challenge number one. As we have talked about many times before on this blog, land should be the residual claimant in a development pro forma. Meaning the value of land depends on what you can build on it. So if BCH is looking to build affordable housing and the rest of the market is looking to build some higher-and-better use, it will be very difficult for them to complete in the market. This is the same reason why, historically speaking, the City of Toronto has struggled to acquire new parkland with the funds it collects from developers. It can't compete.
On the flip side, it's very possible that in a downmarket, like the one we're in right now, BCH might be the only real buyer of development land. Affordable housing requires subsidies and if the subsidies BCH has access to result in both feasible projects and higher residual land values, well then they'll be able to win sites. But it will depend on the market conditions at the time. It also raises an important question: What is the right level of subsidy for the affordable housing that BCH intends to develop itself?
The second challenge is going to be execution. Development is a risky endeavor, but most of the time the private sector accepts these risks because they believe they will be compensated accordingly. And once they have taken on these risks, they become highly motivated to deliver for their investors and partners. Will the federal government be equally motivated? Perhaps. There are, of course, lots of examples of public housing developers in other parts of the world. But is it the most effective way to deliver new affordable housing? An alternative approach would be motivating the private sector to participate.
Getting the federal government "back in the business of building homes" may sound promising, but there's reason to be skeptical. There will be lots of details to figure out if it's actually going to be efficient and effective.
Cover photo by Eduardo Alvarado on Unsplash
Before 2022, being a land developer was a perfectly reasonable business to be in. In fact, it was a lucrative business to be in. What this business entailed was buying development land, getting it rezoned for some higher-and-better use (which here in Toronto usually takes a few years), and then selling it to another developer who would then build the thing that you got approved (or something close to it).
This kind of business practice is sometimes looked down upon by the general public, presumably because it feels like a speculative endeavor that doesn't actually result in anything physical. But another way to look at it is that it's just dividing up the same required work across multiple firms. Projects can take a long time and sometimes investors want their money back.
It is also good practice to look at this option even if you aren't a land developer, per se. One way you do this is by plugging in the market value of your land in your pro forma (not book cost). This way you can tell if your development margin is coming from your land uplift or from the build out. If most of your margin is coming from the former, then it may not be worth taking on the risk of construction.
In any event, the problem with this business is that it no longer works. (At least not in Toronto.) Land prices are moving in the opposite direction. Without a clear understanding of potential revenues (such as condo sales), it's very difficult to value development land. And if you can't accurately value land, then it's pretty challenging to run a business predicated on selling it.
What this means is that the development margin, if any, has shifted away from land toward the full build out (or whatever else your strategy may be). It's not enough to just entitle land. There's lots of entitled land out there right now. That is not the constraint. The constraint is figuring out how to actually make sites feasible. And to do that, you have to roll up your sleeves and really work each project and each asset.
Those who know how to do that will be the ones who come out ahead in the next cycle.
One common mistake that people make when it comes to development pro forma is assuming that feasibility is easily attainable. It's not. In fact, it's best to think of a pro forma as a fragile object that is liable to break if not handled properly. So to that end, here's a non-exhaustive list of things you may want to keep in mind when trying to both forecast and create the future as a developer:
As a starting point, you're safer assuming that your pro forma isn't going to work. If the numbers look too good to be true or even just really promising -- especially at the outset -- then there's a good chance they're wrong. You've likely missed things. Be weary if it feels too easy, especially in our current market, where very little works.
Cheap land isn't enough. Just because your land cost feels cheap, it doesn't mean that your development project will end up being feasible. There are instances and entire markets where even free land isn't enough. You might actually need a negative land value. Meaning, a subsidy is required to reach feasibility. This is the case with affordable housing.
Drill down into as many line items as possible. Back-of-the-envelope math -- where you just plug in a few cost per square foot assumptions -- is fine for an initial screening. But if you're really serious, you need to get deep into the weeds. Run through the entire process in your mind and think about what might happen, and go wrong. Even with this, you will still miss things.
Stress test your assumptions. What happens if the city asks you to do X? What happens if the local councillor comes at you with Y? Can your fragile object support them, or will it shatter to pieces? The sensitivity of your fragile object to various stimuli will help you decide whether you want to do the project or whether there's simply too much risk.
Ultimately, real estate development is a creative act. You'll need to come up with creative solutions, and then you'll need to will your project to life. This is one way to tell that you're on the right path. It needs to feel really hard. So if your pro forma also feels this way, then there's a higher probability that you're narrowing in on something close to reality.