I toured Oben Flats Leslieville today, which is a 48-unit purpose-built rental building at 1075 Queen Street East in Leslieville (Toronto). It was designed by superkül.
Oben Flats is doing some very cool things, so I would encourage you to check them out if you’re in the market for a new luxury rental (or you just want to nerd out about property). The image at the top of this post is the west view from the rooftop terrace.
Here are 3 things that stood out for me:
1. One of the interior amenity spaces for the building is actually on the ground floor attached to the main entrance. There’s a fireplace, a wet bar, a set of wine fridges and free wifi. Oben Flats hosts regular events in this space, but I was told that residents also regularly hang out in it. They’ll bring their laptop down and have a glass of wine.
What I like about this is that it encourages social interaction within a multi-family building typology. I would love to see more of this kind of thinking. Part of the reason you live in a city is to interact with other humans.
2. Oben Flats has developed their own signature scent and regularly curates a music playlist with the help of BELLOSOUND. Both of these items are pumped throughout the common areas of the building, which is not that dissimilar from what you might find in some luxury hotels. I have one of their candles sitting on my desk right now, so my office smells like Oben Flats. I’m into it.
3. Another unique feature of the building is the fully automated hydraulic car-stacking system. Here’s a photo of what the guts of that looks like:
There are 3 platforms in each bay (the bottom one is below-grade in the above picture). And there’s always one empty spot so that the platforms are able to shuffle around both horizontally and vertically. However, as a user, you never see this. You simply hit a button and drive into your bay. It’s always the same one.
I’ve said many times before on this blog that I think we will see way more of these types of parking solutions in the city going forward.
There are other cool things I could mention about the building, but it’s far too nice out to sit at my desk any longer. Before I sign off though, I should mention that this is in no way a sponsored post. I simply admire what Oben Flats is doing.
See you tomorrow.
In most big cities around the world, there is a pressing need for more affordable housing. We know that inclusive cities make for better cities. But from San Francisco to Hong Kong, you always hear people talking about how expensive housing is.
So why is this such a difficult problem to solve?
Part of the problem, I think, is that many people don’t understand the economics behind building a new building. Oftentimes I hear people say that because developers make so much money, they should just build more affordable housing. Done. Simple.
But things are not that simple.
To illustrate my point, let’s walk through the thought process for developing a new rental apartment building.
In its simplest form, developers are concerned with: revenue - costs = profit. And since many of the costs associated with building a new building just are what they are, it all starts with revenue, which in our case would be rents.
To build a new rental tower in Toronto, your rents typically need to be at least in the high $2′s per square foot per month. Otherwise the economics don’t work. But to make the math simple, let’s say you need $3 per square foot in rent. That means a 1,000 sf apartment would rent for $3,000 per month.
That’s not cheap. There are only so many people who can afford these kinds of rents and only so many areas where you can command these kinds of rents, which means there are only so many areas in Toronto where new rental apartments will be built by the private sector.
If the rents instead happen to be $2 psf – meaning that same 1,000 sf apartment now rents for $2,000 per month – then for-profit developers will not build (barring any unique deal circumstances). Even at $2.50 psf / $2,500 per month, it would be difficult to make the numbers work here.
And by the numbers, I am talking about tight returns that really only start to make sense in our environment of record low interest rates. Which means that when interest rates start to rise (pushing cap rates up), it may not even make sense to build rental apartments when the rents are in the high $2′s per square foot. This is particularly true if you’re competing against condo developers to buy the land. They can afford to pay more.
In this scenario (of rising interest rates), many real estate firms might simply opt to buy existing assets instead of taking on the risk of building anything new. Now all of a sudden your supply of new market rate apartments (not to mention affordable apartments) has dried up. Remember, it’s been decades since Toronto built rental apartments at any sort of meaningful scale.
It’s for reasons like this that Vancouver launched a program called Rental 100. In a nutshell, it helps to reduce the “costs” variable in the equation mentioned above so that developers are able to meet minimum project returns and build more rental buildings. They do that through things such as reduced parking requirements, additional density, development charge waivers, and so on.
In some ways, these items are subsidies. The city is giving up revenue that it could have otherwise collected from a developer building, say, a condo. But in other ways, they are freebies. The city could be unlocking development sites that may have otherwise not been developed. In which case it’s not really forgone revenue.
Vancouver’s Rental 100 program is a market rental housing policy. But there’s no reason that similar thinking couldn’t be applied to create an affordable rental housing policy. It has been done and is being done in many cities.
Today I spent the day at the 11th Annual Land & Development Conference here in Toronto. I found it particularly good this year, but it’s now late, I’m tired, and I want to go watch game 6 of the NBA finals. So I think this is going to be a fairly short post.
Here’s a summary of some of my key takeaways from the day (a lot of it is Toronto-centric):
Increasingly, the commercial and residential sides of the real estate development business are converging. And it’s being largely driven by the focus on urban intensification and mixed-use.
This is leading to an “institutionalization” of the residential side, which has historically been the domain of smaller private/local companies and rich families.
Merger is creating complexity around asset valuations: Is it about the income (cap rates) and/or the future development potential?
Low rise house prices in Toronto continue to skyrocket. Supply is highly constrained. This has been the story for a number of years now.
High rise condo prices in Toronto continue to be more or less flat (modest increase). The industry is going to need to figure out how to work with and compliment the current surge in rental apartment development. There is an element of competition between the two asset classes.
According the RealNet’s new home price index, the spread between low-rise and high-rise housing in the Greater Toronto Area widened to $326,659 as of this past April (2015).
Rental Apartment Case Studies: Motion on Bay by Concert Properties (Bay and Dundas) was underwrote at $2.60-2.80 psf rents back in 2009. Rents are now in the $3 range. The Heathview by Morguard (Bathurst & St Clair) had $2.80-2.90 psf rents in its pro forma. It achieved and beat these numbers.
There’s a flood of Asian money coming into (1) Vancouver and then into (2) Toronto looking for development projects. There appears to be a lot of impatient and/or dumb capital out there. Challenge remains finding good development sites.
Vancouver is well ahead of Toronto in terms of transit oriented development. The initial intent in Ontario was to create a link between the greenbelt that surrounds Toronto + land use (intensification) + transit. But we haven’t been doing a good job of building transit and developing around it. This ties in nicely with a post I wrote called: The case for planning transit around minimum population densities.
I will end by saying that I found there to be greater transparency at today’s conference. There was a lot of talk about deal specifics and I don’t remember seeing this much detail at past conferences.
Maybe I just wasn’t paying attention closely enough before or maybe the industry is slowly becoming more transparent. I hope it’s the latter.
If you were there today and I missed something groundbreaking, please share it in the comments below!