Category: Real Estate

• Corktown Condos just launched!

  

  Today was the official launch of Corktown Condos. (In case you missed it, I wrote about Corktown last month, over here.) So what does this actually mean? What it means is that we got a small group of 500+ agents and brokers together to tell them about the project. We talked about our love of Hamilton and provided an overview of the project’s amenities, suite pricing, deposit structures, and so on. Everyone who attended now also has access to our broker portal, where all of this information is stored.

  

  However, no actual purchase agreements were signed today. That’s for later. The first signing event will take place on Saturday, May 27th starting at 12PM, at 30 St. Clair Avenue West, Suite 103, in Toronto. So if you’re interested in Corktown, I would encourage you to attend on this date. Feel free to also reach out to our sales team if you have any questions (sales@corktown.condos). The people you want to connect with are Shannon Glas, Daniella Commisso, and/or Hansen Chu. Hopefully I’ll see you there next weekend!

  2023.05.17

• World’s largest asset manager now wants people in the office 4 days a week

  The trend continues. BlackRock — the world’s largest asset manager with about 20,000 employees in more than 30 countries — announced today that employees need to be in the office at least 4 days a week starting this September. This is an increase from the current 3 days a week.

  You can’t read the news today without seeing some sort of headline about the demise of downtowns. But what is clear from announcements like these is that we still have yet to reach an equilibrium. And it’s probably just taking a lot longer than most people initially anticipated.

  I know that this is a very divisive topic and that many of you think I’m old school for continuing to say this. But I fundamentally believe that there are irreplaceable benefits to in-person interactions among teams. I don’t know, maybe it’s because of my architecture background.

  In architecture school you’re expected to spend all of your time “working in studio.” And even though you’re often working and producing things on your own, you do it so that you can be around your peers, shout out questions when you need help, learn from their work, and go for burritos and beers together.

  And it was such a fun and creative experience for me that I can’t imagine what it would have been like had I been forced to work from my apartment. I probably would have had an equal number of burritos, but maybe a lot less beer?

  2023.05.16

• New rental apartments in Toronto by year of construction

  

  “Your local self-inflicted housing criss ouroboros” tweeted this chart out over the weekend, showing the number of new rental suites completed in Toronto since 1900. The data is from Open Data Toronto and it does not include any condominiums. It also only includes apartment buildings with 10 or more suites (which would be most of the supply anyway).

  This chart is a good example of what we spoke about yesterday: “If you want to negatively impact new supply, cap rental growth.” And that’s exactly what was done in the 1970s. But in reality, the changes were more broad than this. The 1970s saw a philosophical shift in the way Canada thought about new housing.

  Housing became rightly viewed as a basic human right. But because of this, the policy landscape shifted away from facilitating the private sector, to intervening and regulating the private sector. This included tax changes which negatively impacted new housing development and, yes, rent controls.

  Ironically, but not unexpectedly, this dramatically lowered the overall supply of new rental housing. To the point where we had effectively shut off the taps by the late 1990s. Thankfully, the condominium sector stepped in and started meaningfully delivering new housing — both for sale and for rent (via individual private investors).

  The supply of new condominiums in Toronto is not shown above, but there is no question that this (shadow rentals) has formed the vast majority of our new rental stock over the last two decades. But in my view, this shift was largely the result of policy decisions. We decided that we didn’t want the private sector building so many new purpose-built rentals, and so we told them to stop.

  It then listened remarkably well.

  2023.04.02

• New York’s iconic Flatiron Building just sold

  Well sort of.

  Previously leased to Macmillan Publishers for the last 60 years, the building has been sitting vacant since 2019 and supposedly needs something like $100 million in CapEx to make it leasable again. Four of the five current owners have wanted to renovate it, but the fifth kept blocking it, and so the other partners sued for a “partition auction.”

  That auction happened last week, and even though the four owners were really trying to lock down the 25% share that they didn’t own, the auction was won by an outsider at $190 million. That said, a 10% deposit was to be due the following day and, apparently, that never happened. So maybe it hasn’t sold yet. But whatever, it’s still interesting to think about its purchase price.

  According to Wikipedia, the Flatiron Building is 255,000 square feet. So at $190 million, the building was “purchased” for $745 per foot. Assuming that it needs another $100 million, that’s another $392 psf, for a total of $1,137 psf.

  What I am curious about now is how this compares to other office buildings in midtown Manhattan. Is there any sort of premium for being the Flatiron Building? And what would space in this building lease for following a renovation? i.e. What cap rate is the market demanding right now for an empty office building needing $100 million in renovations? Or, is the play to convert to residential?

  I don’t know enough about the real estate market in midtown Manhattan to answer these questions with any sort of precision, but I’m hoping some of you do and that you’ll leave a comment below.

  2023.03.27

• Thoughts on Opendoor Exclusives

  My most recent post about Opendoor, the so-called iBuying company, is about how it wants to become the “transaction layer for homes.” What that means is they would like to start facilitating third-party transactions between buyers and sellers, and move away (either partially or completely) from actually owning homes for a period of time.

  The company is still trying to sell homes that it purchased in Q2-2022, which, as we all know, was a very different kind of housing market. So by doing this, Opendoor would be both reducing the market risk that it takes on and making its business model less capital intensive.

  Knowing this, I actually think that “iBuyer” is the wrong moniker for their business. As I see it, the long-term objective is not to just be an iBuyer of homes. The objective is to ultimately facilitate transactions in a capital efficient kind of way. The point of iBuying is/was to seed their two-sided marketplace with sellers.

  As we have discussed before, two-sided marketplaces usually always have a chicken-and-egg problem. No sellers equals no buyers, and vice versa. So you have to figure out a clever way to attract one side. Of course, now that Opendoor has sellers, the company can start to aggregate the demand side (i.e. buyers). And that is exactly what it is doing with Opendoor Exclusives.

  Exclusives works like this:

  • The inventory consists of “off-market” homes that have yet to be listed on MLS
  • The homes are discounted about 2-4%
  • They are available for 14 days
  • You can’t negotiate the price — it’s first come, first served
  • If your appraisal comes in lower, Opendoor will price match
  • And finally, Opendoor will not pay any buyer commissions (which is reflected in the above discount)

  As I understand it, if the home doesn’t sell, it then gets listed on MLS and all of the normal terms and practices would apply. But before that happens, the key objective is to facilitate a quick transaction in one of two ways.

  The first way is for the seller to request an offer from Opendoor’s network of buyers. In this scenario, Opendoor never needs to own the home or perform any improvements (which is usually what it does when it iBuys). It is an intermediary earning some sort of take.

  The second way is for Opendoor to do its usual thing and make an instant offer to buy the home. But here’s the thing. With enough buyers on its platform and by creating a sense of urgency (hey, here’s a lower price!), presumably the idea is that it may never need to close on a number of these homes. It just needs to find another buyer within 14 days.

  If it works, this could be an interesting business.

  2023.03.22

• Royal Bank of Canada to employees: “Get back in the office”

  Royal Bank of Canada, which is one of the largest employers in the country, sent an internal memo to employees this week with statements like these:

  “When our teams come together on-site more frequently, we are solving complex problems faster, learning and growing more effectively, and ultimately building deeper connections with one another.”

  “Without frequent in-person engagement our long-term competitiveness is at risk.”

  I feel strongly that we are going to continue to see more of this. Current work-from-home arrangements are not at all static. We have not yet reached a post-pandemic equilibrium. That will likely take a few more years.

  More flexibility, rather than less, is something we all want, and I don’t believe that’s going away. But I do believe that for the most productive and congealed teams, the default workplace will remain the office.

  P.S. Office Space (embedded video above) is a great movie.

  2023.03.21

• Walkable archipelagos are emerging across the US

  We have spoken before about how walkable urban communities punch above their weight. In the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, designed and built for walkability. And yet, walkable neighborhoods in the top 35 metro areas account for about 19.1% of total US real GDP.

  At the same time, because walkable communities are a rarified commodity, they usually come at a premium. According to some sources, it’s to the tune of 30-40% when you look at home prices and rental rates. This again suggests that humans actually like and want this type of urbanism.

  Which is probably why there’s a growing interest in building more of it. Here’s a recent article from Bloomberg CityLab and here’s a photo of Culdesac’s new completely car-free community under construction in Tempe, Arizona (this doesn’t look like the Arizona I know):

  

  But in addition to just giving people more of what they want, there are also real economic benefits to stripping out parking and to overall more compact development. Charlotte-based Space Craft is another developer focused on car-light and transit-oriented apartments, and they have seemingly managed to make their projects more affordable as a result:

  “Our product offered lower rents to residents, $100 to $200 below our competitors, and was the best product in the market because we were able to reinvest some of the savings from parking,” said [Harrison] Tucker, who sees walkable urban neighborhoods becoming their own real estate investment class. “The economic case was just very strong.”

  This also flies in the face of the common argument that developers will always profit maximize and charge whatever the market will bear for their spaces. So why even bother trying to make it easier and cheaper to build? But this is not true! Lower development costs, as we see here, can and will translate into lower rents and higher quality buildings.

  I also agree with Tucker that we will see walkable urban neighborhoods, and their associated building typologies, become an important real estate asset class. For all of the reasons that we talk about on this blog, this is where our cities are headed.

  However, it’s going to take some time. I like the metaphor (mentioned in the above article) that, right now, we are creating “walkable archipelagos” or walkable islands in seas of cars. With the right connectivity (transit, micromobility, and so on), these islands can do just fine. But over time, I suspect we’ll see a lot more land reclamation. Good.

  2023.03.18

• Seattle is building more accessory dwellings than single-family houses

  In 2019, Seattle made it easier to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Among other things, they started allowing two ADUs per lot, they stopped requiring the owner to live on site, and they stopped requiring off-street parking. The result is that the city is now permitting close to 1,000 ADUs per year (2022 figure). And for the first time ever, this figure now exceeds the number of permits issued for single-family houses.

  

  Part of what’s driving this adoption is that the City created 10 pre-approved plans that owners/builders can choose from. And since they were launched in September 2020, these plans have been permitted 130 times. (Los Angeles did something very similar with its “standard plan program.”)

  In general though, Seattle’s policies seem more permissive than what we have here in Toronto. According to this recent “annual report”, it is estimated that about 12% of ADUs in Seattle are licensed as short-term rentals. About a third are also being permitted as condominiums. In Toronto, any sort of severance is heavily discouraged. The objective was and is to create new rental housing.

  But for Seattle, this seems to be creating more affordable homes for sale. The median selling price for an ADU is apparently $732,000, compared to $1.2 million for a single-family house. This sounds kind of good.

  Image: The Seattle Times

  2023.03.09

• The first vacation rental REIT

  This is a fascinating interview with John Andrew Entwistle, the founder of vacation rental company Wander. The way to understand Wander is that it is a vertically integrated travel company. So unlike Airbnb, for example, Wander owns all of their real estate (vacation homes in top destinations), they property manage, they asset manage, and they are building out the technology required to connect all of this stuff.

  They have also created what they are calling the first ever vacation rental REIT, which means that you can buy a piece of their real estate portfolio (currently 13 properties). In addition to being a source of cash, this creates an interesting flywheel effect where maybe you stay in a Wander and then decide to become an investor in their REIT, or vice versa.

  Eventually though, Wander hopes to be just as asset light as Airbnb (which again, doesn’t own any real estate; they’re a booking platform). The idea is that REIT unit holders will ultimately own the real estate and they will be the asset manager / technology platform that sits on top. But that they will still control the entire travel experience.

  John also gets into some of the specifics of how they run their business. For example, in each destination, they hire local cleaning crews and handy people (who are not Wander employees). They typically spend about 7% of the value of a property to furnish it (which is typically around $80-150k per property right now). And their average order size is around $4.5k, which suggests that people are willing to pay a premium for this vertically integrated travel experience.

  If you can’t see the video above, click here.

  2023.03.04

• Calm down, Dubai

  Knight Frank just published the 17th edition of its annual “The Wealth Report.” I have spoken about this report many times before on the blog because I generally find them really interesting. So today I’d like to share two items from this latest one.

  The first item is their most recent Prime International Residential Index (PIRI). What this does is track prime residential prices across 100 key city, sun, and ski locations. “Prime”, in case you are wondering, is defined as the most desirable and most expensive properties in each market — generally the top 5%.

  Look at Dubai go:

  

  When I see a chart like this I usually start at the top and then immediately start scanning for Toronto. Here, it’s more or less in the middle with a 4.1% increase. Totally reasonable. Prime property in Auckland and Wellington, on the other hand, didn’t fair as well in 2022.

  The second item is this very wonderful diagram showing flight connectivity before Covid (12 months to March 2020) and then post-Covid (12 months to December 2022):

  

  The way to read this diagram is that the most connected cities — ranked by the number and quality of flight connections — get pushed toward the center. They also get bigger. Less connected cities, on the other hand, slide toward the edges. All of the cities also generally gravitate toward their main regional connections.

  The most obvious change is the greatly weakened connectivity of Chinese cities. This is not surprising given their zero-Covid approach. Moscow also seems to get rightly pushed out to the side.

  Another story is the continued rise of both Singapore (to the likely detriment of Hong Kong) and Dubai. I have only been to Dubai once, and I couldn’t figure out how to navigate its sea of roads and highways, or how to locate an actual city center where humans walk around (though the historic Bur Dubai area was interesting).

  But there is no denying that Dubai has become a pretty important global city.

  2023.03.01