Category: Real Estate

• What will our customers think? Condo vs. rental.

  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?”

  2020.07.11

• Personalities and places

  Here is an interesting study about personalities and places (Journal article here and study here). It is interesting because so many of us are working from home and away from our regular environments. But it is also interesting because a lot of us, here on this blog, are in the business of creating spaces. And these environments have an impact on all of us.

  The researchers for this study started by assessing the personalities of some 2,000 university students. The objective was to determine their baseline temperaments according to the “Big Five” personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Once that was established, the students were sent out into the world with a location-based app on their phone.

  Four times a day, the participants were asked to enter their current location, as well as answer a few questions about their current state of mind. The big takeway from this study is twfold and is as follows: “People actively select their environments, and the environments they select can alter their psychological characteristics [both] in the moment and over time.”

  The first bit is perhaps not all that surprising. We all have different personality traits and we choose environments that suit what we like. Extroverts, for example, tend to spend less time at home and more time at restaurants, bars, clubs, and at friends’ places. (Presumably this means that quarantine was a lot harder for extroverts.)

  The second part of this finding suggests that once we have actively chosen where we want to be, that environment then impacts how we feel at that exact moment, as well as over a certain period of time. You’ll have to read the study for the nuances around this. But it is fascinating to me because it helps me explain why I feel different now that I’m mostly working from home.

  Beyond poor video call connections and the lack of in-person collaboration, there also seems to be the psychological impact of not being in a particular environment. Not having to commute is a nice feature, particularly for some, but it also means not being around colleagues and not being able to meet for that impromptu craft beer. Turns out those things matter for our mental state.

  2020.07.09

• The value of Champagne

  

  Westmount Gaurantee hosted a Champagne tasting event for its clients this evening. Obviously it took place over Zoom. It was a great event and I learned a few things about Champagne. As most of you will know, sparkling wine cannot be called Champagne unless it’s from Champagne, France — a region that, as of 2008, included about 76,000 acres of vineyards and 319 villages. But as I started thinking about this acreage, the developer in me couldn’t help but wonder: “How was the boundary for the Champagne region established? Is it based on unique soil conditions that can’t be found anywhere else in France and the world, or is this a way to artificially control the supply of Champagne and fix prices?”

  As you might imagine, the answer is complicated. (See the Champagne Riots of 1910-1911.) The viticultural boundaries of Champagne were legally defined in 1927. And the entire area is compromised of five wine-producing districts. But there have been revisions to this boundary. In 2008, the production zone was increased from 319 communes to 357. (I’m sure this was highly controversial.) And since the value of land is dependent on what you can do with it, this would have had a dramatic and overnight impact on land values. Yesterday you couldn’t apply a Champagne label, but today you can. According to this article from 2008, we are talking €5,000 a hectare to €1 million per hectare because of a simple boundary change. That is the value of “Champagne.”

  Photo by Lomig on Unsplash

  2020.06.25

• Airbnb’s predictive abilities

  I recently discovered and subscribed to Packy McCormick’s “Not Boring” newsletter. So far it’s quite good, and so here I am mentioning it to you all on the blog. In his latest newsletter, he makes the case for why Airbnb and Zillow — the two largest residential real estate tech companies — should merge. Naturally this new company would be called Zillbnb. You can read all about why he thinks this is a good idea over here, but I would like to point out one thing that I found interesting.

  Packy makes the argument that “easiest-to-book, shortest duration reservations” are a leading indicator for changes in demand. In other words, platforms like Airbnb can start to tell you where people might want to live and platforms like Breather can start to tell you where people might want to work.

  To support this argument he uses the example of his Airbnb rental outside of New York City. Sure, demand initially fell off a cliff at the beginning of lockdown, but then it started to surge as New Yorkers sought refuge outside of the city. And while I think that this particular change in demand will likely end up being short-term in nature, a similar trend is being reported around in the world. Did we hear it first on Airbnb?

  2020.06.22

• First shoring rig arrives at Junction House

  Our first shoring rig was delivered and setup today at Junction House. A second one is on the way shortly.

  It will take a couple of months to complete all of our caisson piles. If you’d like to learn about how shoring is constructed, check out this “explainer” from UrbanToronto.

  It was also an absolutely beautiful day here in Toronto — not a cloud in the sky. So here are a few photos from site.

  

  

  

  

  

  2020.06.08

• Urbanation releases May 2020 condo market update

  The latest condo market data from Urbanation is encouraging. As I reported last month, April was a very slow month, which isn’t surprising given that it was the first full month of lockdown. Residential resales across the Greater Toronto Area were down 67% year-over-year.

  In May, we have seen resale condominium sales increase by almost 60% compared to April, though they are still down by a wide margin compared to last year. The average sale price also increased by 7.9% compared to April and by 3.4% compared to last year. This puts resale condominium prices in line with what we were seeing in Q4-2019.

  The rental condo market (that is, condos being rented out via MLS) also showed signs of stabilizing. Leases increased by 75% compared to April, outpacing the number of new listings (66%). Rental rates remained more or less flat (0.3%) compared to April, but they are down by about 5% compared to their Q3-2019 high.

  On the new construction side, we have only really seen a handful of new launches/releases. Units are selling, but it still feels a bit early, at least for me, to really determine where we’re at in terms of pricing and velocity. Nevertheless, I suspect that we will see a significantly stronger fall market come September.

  2020.06.06

• New York City is budgeting $30.8 billion in property tax collections

  According to the WSJ, New York City is budgeting to collect $30.8 billion in property taxes for fiscal year 2021. These tax bills will go out on June 1 and payments will start becoming due on July 1, which is the start of the city’s fiscal year. Here’s how the collections break down across houses, apartments, and commercial properties:

  

  Overall — and despite the fact that values have softened in the wake of COVID-19 — this year’s property tax budget represents a 5.7% increase over FY2020. The reason for this is that each year the city completes its annual assessments on January 5. And so according to the city’s January numbers, everything is just fine.

  Supposedly this January 5 date is usually non-negotiable. A lawyer is quoted in the Journal article saying that under normal circumstances, if your house were to burn down on January 6, you would still have to pay all of your taxes for the upcoming fiscal year.

  Time will tell if this time is different. But it is interesting, though not surprising, to note just how significant property taxes are to New York City’s overall tax collections. They represent a little more half of all taxes collected.

  2020.05.31

• Acquisition price vs. current market value — which should be your land input?

  If you’ve bought land with the intention of developing it and you now think the value of that land has either gone up or down, there comes the question of what number you should plug into your development pro forma. Do you input what you paid for the land or do you input the current market value of the land? The former is probably more common than the latter, but in my view it’s important to consider both scenarios.

  If the value of the land has gone up, it means that you think you could turn around and sell it for that price today. And that would mean you would be making a profit without doing anymore work and without taking on any additional risk. That’s an option that exists right here and right now (t = 0). What you want to get at in your pro forma, or at least understand, is the incremental profit margin from taking on the risk and brain damage of actually doing and completing the development project.

  To do that, you need to consider the current market value of the land. That way you isolate your land margin from your build-out margin. The one problem with this approach is that the numbers may then tell you not to develop. In a hot market (which is not right now), it is not uncommon for land to get bid up beyond current fundamentals. There’s always someone else who is willing to be more aggressive.

  In this case, you may find that most of the development margin is in the land. And you will start thinking to yourself, “How can anyone afford to pay this much? It doesn’t make sense.” This doesn’t necessarily mean that you shouldn’t develop. But at least it gives you a better understanding of the risk and reward trade-off that you’re about to take on. It might also tell you some things about the market.

  2020.05.14

• A question of land value

  

  Let’s say that we have a piece of development land worth $100. That is the market value of the land based on its highest and best use at this particular point in time. Now let’s assume that the land was just encumbered with a new burden: inclusionary zoning. All of a sudden there is now a requirement to make available X% of any residential units built at 50% of average market rents for the area.

  Technically, the land is now worth less than $100. And there is a school of thought out there that, in instances like this one, the price of all land should automatically reset downward to offset and account for the inclusionary zoning burden. But as I have argued before on the blog, land prices tend to be fairly sticky, unless the owner is distressed and really needs to sell.

  So what can often happen is that the land owner will stubbornly cling to the original $100 number. The thinking being, “I was once told that my land is worth $100 and so that’s the minimum price I’m willing to accept.” In this scenario, you may need a broad increase in rents in order for a transaction to occur. This way the market rate units might be able to fully subsidize these new affordable units, preserving any margins and justifying the original $100 number.

  Of course, the impact of inclusionary zoning is a hotly debated topic and there are a number of variables to consider. And so I will leave it at that for today. The real purpose of this post is to consider another permutation. Let’s once again say that we have a piece of development land worth $100. But instead of being owned by 13 siblings — and 3 cousins that live abroad and can’t be reached other than by fax — it’s owned by the government.

  In this case, the government wants to sell the land and is considering two options. It can either (1) sell it for $100 and maximize immediate taxpayer revenue or (2) it can sell it for $80 with the condition that the buyer agree to deliver X% of affordable units (and a bunch of other goodies and positive externalities). I would also add that this fictitious town is experiencing what some might call a housing crisis.

  If you were a private sector actor, you would probably choose option 1. You would take the additional $20 and retire to Florida (I’m off by a few zeros). But this is the government we’re talking about and presumably the government is thinking about the broader public good. Which option do you think is better at maximizing that?

  2020.05.08

• The redevelopment of Toronto’s residential market

  I could use another webinar on COVID-19.

  — Brandon Donnelly (@donnelly_b) April 29, 2020

  Somehow — even after I sarcastically put out the above tweet — I ended up on a BISNOW panel next week about the impact of COVID-19 on Toronto’s residential real estate market.

  When I was asked if I would do it, I replied with: “Does this mean I will need to put on pants?” That was interpreted as a, “yes, I will join the panel.” And so here we are.

  It’s on Wednesday, May 13 at 2:30pm. Steve Keyzer of Gin & Sonic fame (Colliers International) and Kevin Stark (Trinity Development Group) are also speaking on the panel. To register, click here. I’ll do my best to be as controversial as possible.

  2020.05.06