Anyone who has ever worked on a development pro forma will know that the process generally works like this: You start with a bunch of assumptions. You assemble those assumptions in a way that will allow you to determine if the project in question is feasible. And then, you realize that almost everything is more costly than you initially thought and that the project may not actually work. Oh shit.
In fact, a sure-fire way to know that you're on the right track is if the numbers sort of don't work. If the returns look too good to be true, they almost certainly are and you're likely missing something big and meaningful. As we have talked about before on this blog, development happens on the margin. That means that you have to work at it. You have to be creative. And often you have to find ways to increase revenues and cut costs.
The common way to find money is through something known as value engineering, which is just a fancy way of saying, "I need to cut costs, so let's see what I can tolerate losing from this project." That's generally how it works. And we do it on every project. You're trying to find high-cost items with relatively low perceived value.
This process often gets a lot of criticism because people view it as a distasteful cheapening of a project. But the reality is that it is usually an important part of maintaining project feasibility. You may really want to use that fancy material you can only get from Switzerland, but maybe
Anyone who has ever worked on a development pro forma will know that the process generally works like this: You start with a bunch of assumptions. You assemble those assumptions in a way that will allow you to determine if the project in question is feasible. And then, you realize that almost everything is more costly than you initially thought and that the project may not actually work. Oh shit.
In fact, a sure-fire way to know that you're on the right track is if the numbers sort of don't work. If the returns look too good to be true, they almost certainly are and you're likely missing something big and meaningful. As we have talked about before on this blog, development happens on the margin. That means that you have to work at it. You have to be creative. And often you have to find ways to increase revenues and cut costs.
The common way to find money is through something known as value engineering, which is just a fancy way of saying, "I need to cut costs, so let's see what I can tolerate losing from this project." That's generally how it works. And we do it on every project. You're trying to find high-cost items with relatively low perceived value.
This process often gets a lot of criticism because people view it as a distasteful cheapening of a project. But the reality is that it is usually an important part of maintaining project feasibility. You may really want to use that fancy material you can only get from Switzerland, but maybe
development charges
were just increased and now you need to offset those new costs by finding savings somewhere else.
This isn't a perfect analogy, but imagine you were shopping for a new car. You might start out by wanting the fully-loaded version, but then you see the price and realize you can't afford it. So you decide to start trimming features and add-ons until you get to a place where you feel more comfortable. I would imagine this happens with cars, and I'm not sure it's right to point to that person after and say, "oh my god, I can't believe you cheaped out and didn't buy the fully-loaded version."
At the same time, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that you don't need to spend a lot of money to (1) care deeply about the work that you do and (2) have taste. You can't fight the economic realities of the world, but you can care and you can be creative. And I don't think it's too much to advocate for these things.
Condo developers are merchant builders. They build a project and then move on. Because of this, there's a belief that there's little incentive to build for durability, in comparison to say purpose-built rental buildings where the developer might continue to own over an extended period of time. While it is true that putting on an operations hat will make you hyper-focused on everything from garbage collection to how you're going to manage all of your suite keys, there are a few things to consider in this debate.
One, as developers we certainly think and care a lot about our brand and our reputation, both with our customers and with Tarion (warranty program). We ask ourselves: "What will our customers think if we do this?" Irrespective of the tenure we're building, we want our projects to be carefully considered. And in the case of condominium projects, we would like our customers to feel excited and comfortable about buying in one of our future projects. That's the goal. This is no different than any other product that you might buy that doesn't come along with some sort of ongoing subscription.
Two, there's often a spread between condominium and rental values. For example, let's consider a brand new 550 square foot condominium in a central neighborhood of Toronto and let's say it would cost you $1,300 psf to buy it today. (Obviously it could be more or it could be less depending on the area and the building.) Now let's start with a rent and back into a value, using some basic assumptions.
Unit Size (SF)
550
Monthly Rent
$2,400
Rent PSF - Monthly
$4.36
Rent PSF - Annual
$52.36
NOI Margin
72%
NOI
$37.70
Exit Cap
3.75%
Value PSF
$1,005
Here I'm assuming that same suite would rent for $2,400 per month. I'm converting that to an annual PSF rent. And then I'm assuming that if you were managing a whole building of these kinds of units, your operating costs might be somewhere around 28%. Crude back-of-the-napkin math to get to a Net Operating Income (psf). Finally, I'm capping this NOI at 3.75%. We can debate my assumptions and if this were in a development pro forma you might "trend" the rents. But I find this comparison helpful. Here we are getting to a value of around $1,005 per square foot. Less than our $1,300 psf above.
The point is that the margins are tighter, which helps to explain why for a long time we saw very few purpose-built rentals being constructed in this city. So even though you might argue that the incentives are in place to build for durability, you do have to weigh that against the realities of what you can actually afford to build. Development is filled with all sorts of these tradeoffs. But if you and/or your investors really want a consistent yield, this strategy can work just fine. Personally, I'm a fan of the long-term approach.
Three, rent control policies can have an impact both on the feasibility of new projects and on people's ability to actually perform maintenance. If you have a scenario where your operating costs -- everything from taxes to utilities -- are rising faster than your allowable rent increases, then you're in a bad situation and you have zero incentive or financial ability to actually invest in the building, despite being a long-term owner.
Finally, there is nothing stopping a purpose-built rental developer from also being a merchant builder. i.e. Selling the entire rental building once it is done and it has been stabilized. So you could argue that we're right back at my first point. Whether you're selling to individual condominium owners or the entire building to one entity, you as the developer have to sit back and ask yourself: "What will our customer(s) think if we do this?"
development charges
were just increased and now you need to offset those new costs by finding savings somewhere else.
This isn't a perfect analogy, but imagine you were shopping for a new car. You might start out by wanting the fully-loaded version, but then you see the price and realize you can't afford it. So you decide to start trimming features and add-ons until you get to a place where you feel more comfortable. I would imagine this happens with cars, and I'm not sure it's right to point to that person after and say, "oh my god, I can't believe you cheaped out and didn't buy the fully-loaded version."
At the same time, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that you don't need to spend a lot of money to (1) care deeply about the work that you do and (2) have taste. You can't fight the economic realities of the world, but you can care and you can be creative. And I don't think it's too much to advocate for these things.
Condo developers are merchant builders. They build a project and then move on. Because of this, there's a belief that there's little incentive to build for durability, in comparison to say purpose-built rental buildings where the developer might continue to own over an extended period of time. While it is true that putting on an operations hat will make you hyper-focused on everything from garbage collection to how you're going to manage all of your suite keys, there are a few things to consider in this debate.
One, as developers we certainly think and care a lot about our brand and our reputation, both with our customers and with Tarion (warranty program). We ask ourselves: "What will our customers think if we do this?" Irrespective of the tenure we're building, we want our projects to be carefully considered. And in the case of condominium projects, we would like our customers to feel excited and comfortable about buying in one of our future projects. That's the goal. This is no different than any other product that you might buy that doesn't come along with some sort of ongoing subscription.
Two, there's often a spread between condominium and rental values. For example, let's consider a brand new 550 square foot condominium in a central neighborhood of Toronto and let's say it would cost you $1,300 psf to buy it today. (Obviously it could be more or it could be less depending on the area and the building.) Now let's start with a rent and back into a value, using some basic assumptions.
Unit Size (SF)
550
Monthly Rent
$2,400
Rent PSF - Monthly
$4.36
Rent PSF - Annual
$52.36
NOI Margin
72%
NOI
$37.70
Exit Cap
3.75%
Value PSF
$1,005
Here I'm assuming that same suite would rent for $2,400 per month. I'm converting that to an annual PSF rent. And then I'm assuming that if you were managing a whole building of these kinds of units, your operating costs might be somewhere around 28%. Crude back-of-the-napkin math to get to a Net Operating Income (psf). Finally, I'm capping this NOI at 3.75%. We can debate my assumptions and if this were in a development pro forma you might "trend" the rents. But I find this comparison helpful. Here we are getting to a value of around $1,005 per square foot. Less than our $1,300 psf above.
The point is that the margins are tighter, which helps to explain why for a long time we saw very few purpose-built rentals being constructed in this city. So even though you might argue that the incentives are in place to build for durability, you do have to weigh that against the realities of what you can actually afford to build. Development is filled with all sorts of these tradeoffs. But if you and/or your investors really want a consistent yield, this strategy can work just fine. Personally, I'm a fan of the long-term approach.
Three, rent control policies can have an impact both on the feasibility of new projects and on people's ability to actually perform maintenance. If you have a scenario where your operating costs -- everything from taxes to utilities -- are rising faster than your allowable rent increases, then you're in a bad situation and you have zero incentive or financial ability to actually invest in the building, despite being a long-term owner.
Finally, there is nothing stopping a purpose-built rental developer from also being a merchant builder. i.e. Selling the entire rental building once it is done and it has been stabilized. So you could argue that we're right back at my first point. Whether you're selling to individual condominium owners or the entire building to one entity, you as the developer have to sit back and ask yourself: "What will our customer(s) think if we do this?"
Why do some buildings cost more to build than others? And how is it that some cities, as a whole, seem to build more cost effectively than others? Without getting into the specifics of how different markets work, I thought it would be valuable to outline some of the cost drivers that impact new developments. But keep in mind that this is by no means an exhaustive list. So, please feel free to add whatever I've missed to the comment section below.
Below-grade parking is hugely expensive. It's almost always a loss leader. You lose money building it. That's why parking ratios matter a great deal. If you're building in the suburbs at 1 to 1 parking vs. 0.2 in the core, you're simply building more of something that doesn't make money. There's also the question of whether you need to build a watertight below-grade, or if you can discharge any groundwater into the municipal infrastructure. Big cost difference.
Union vs. non-union construction labor.
Building stepbacks add cost and create additional complexity. To build more cost effectively, you really want repetition. But terraces are awesome. I get it.
Impact fees, development levies, and other government fees can vary widely across cities. As I've mentioned many times before on the blog, these line items can add up to 20-24% of the price of a new condominium here Toronto.
Time is expensive. One of the bigger line items in a development pro forma is financing interest charges. The longer things take, the more expensive the housing needs to be.
Markets are unique. Quebec, for example, has relatively low electricity rates. For this reason, it's pretty common for homes in Quebec to use electric heating, which is usually pretty cost effective to install. According to this 2019 study, 68% of Ontario households rely on natural gas heating. In Quebec, the number is only 5%.
Depending on what you're building next to, you may face additional costs. For example, if you're building right up against a rail line, you may need to construct a "crash wall" in order to safeguard against possible derailments and you'll probably need to up the STC rating on your windows because of the higher noise levels. These costs will not be insignificant.
In theory, land costs are supposed to be the residual claimant in a development pro forma. What that means is that you should back into your land value after calculating your projected revenue and considering all of your other development costs. If your revenue is lower, so too should be your land cost. Land cost as a percentage of total costs will, naturally, vary across different markets.
Why do some buildings cost more to build than others? And how is it that some cities, as a whole, seem to build more cost effectively than others? Without getting into the specifics of how different markets work, I thought it would be valuable to outline some of the cost drivers that impact new developments. But keep in mind that this is by no means an exhaustive list. So, please feel free to add whatever I've missed to the comment section below.
Below-grade parking is hugely expensive. It's almost always a loss leader. You lose money building it. That's why parking ratios matter a great deal. If you're building in the suburbs at 1 to 1 parking vs. 0.2 in the core, you're simply building more of something that doesn't make money. There's also the question of whether you need to build a watertight below-grade, or if you can discharge any groundwater into the municipal infrastructure. Big cost difference.
Union vs. non-union construction labor.
Building stepbacks add cost and create additional complexity. To build more cost effectively, you really want repetition. But terraces are awesome. I get it.
Impact fees, development levies, and other government fees can vary widely across cities. As I've mentioned many times before on the blog, these line items can add up to 20-24% of the price of a new condominium here Toronto.
Time is expensive. One of the bigger line items in a development pro forma is financing interest charges. The longer things take, the more expensive the housing needs to be.
Markets are unique. Quebec, for example, has relatively low electricity rates. For this reason, it's pretty common for homes in Quebec to use electric heating, which is usually pretty cost effective to install. According to this 2019 study, 68% of Ontario households rely on natural gas heating. In Quebec, the number is only 5%.
Depending on what you're building next to, you may face additional costs. For example, if you're building right up against a rail line, you may need to construct a "crash wall" in order to safeguard against possible derailments and you'll probably need to up the STC rating on your windows because of the higher noise levels. These costs will not be insignificant.
In theory, land costs are supposed to be the residual claimant in a development pro forma. What that means is that you should back into your land value after calculating your projected revenue and considering all of your other development costs. If your revenue is lower, so too should be your land cost. Land cost as a percentage of total costs will, naturally, vary across different markets.
