Over the years on this blog, we have spoken many times about what Pouyan Safapour, president of Devron Developments, wrote about in this recent Maclean's article: the method of pre-selling condominiums (which is what we customarily do in Toronto) biases the market toward investor buyers and smaller, more cost-effective suites.
Unlike end-user buyers, investors have generally viewed waiting three to five years for their condominium to be complete as a feature in recent years, rather than a bug. It has meant asset appreciation without having to carry or actually manage the property.
The pre-sale model works very well for a number of other reasons, too. Firstly, by pre-selling, developers minimize market risk for both themselves and the construction lender. Now you have contracted revenue to take out the construction loan at the end, as opposed to building on "spec" and hoping the market will be there, which may or may not be the case.
It's also an equity-efficient model for developers. Banks are able to offer higher LTVs because of the contracted revenue, and insured purchaser deposits can be used as a source of funds for the project, reducing the amount of required equity.
But it is certainly true that many, perhaps even most, end-users would prefer to buy when the building is complete. So how might we reorient the model to better cater to these homebuyers? This is especially relevant in today's market, where end-user buyers have overtaken investors.
In the current framework, there are a couple of things that can be done. Developers can just build smaller projects. This minimizes the window between pre-sale and completion. Another option is to segment the project between homes that will sell quickly upfront (and fulfill lender pre-sale requirements) and homes that are geared more toward end-users but won't sell until later. In this case, you're trying to sell enough to start construction, and you're building the balance on "spec."
Changing the entire financing model requires a lot more work. Removing pre-sales means more market risk and more required equity (unless these risks somehow get shifted by the government). If this happens, then there's a reasonable argument that we would see far fewer condominiums getting built, even if the ones that do get built are better suited to end-users.
There are developers in Toronto today that do not believe the investor pre-sale market is coming back, or at least not coming back anytime soon. If that ends up being the case, and I'm not sure it will be, then market participants, whoever they might be, will be forced to meet this demand in one of two ways: building more rental housing (which is by definition on "spec") or getting better at delivering end-user condominiums.
Cover photo by Fernando Strabuli on Unsplash
High Art Capital recently announced the launch of a new fund called the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Rental and Affordable Housing Initiative. It has been anchored by a $300 million mezzanine debt commitment (and a "nominal equity investment") from the Building Ontario Fund (BOF) and is expected to be capitalized in total with a minimum of $1.3 billion.
The objective is to acquire approximately 2,200 rental homes in blocks within newly completed, unsold condominiums across the GTA and convert them into long-term rental housing. Included within this will be approximately 550 affordable rental homes that are expected to be title-protected at rents set at the lower of 25% below local market rent or 30% of median gross household income.
This is interesting, but it's certainly not the first example of investors buying, or wanting to buy, excess condominium inventory. However, it may become the largest in Toronto and, as far as I know, it's the only one to partner with the public sector (BOF is a provincial Crown agency).
The way it is intended to work is as follows:
Condominium developers are sitting on unsold inventory and maybe on inventory they took back after purchasers defaulted (and which may be subject to legal action). What High Art will do is say to developers, "Hey, if you give me a really awesome deal, I'll take 50 of those condominium units off your hands." And if the developer is desperate enough, they will say, "Sure, that sounds good. Let's do a deal and then go for a nice closing dinner."
But at what price?
As we've talked about many times before on the blog, developer pricing is typically based on a cost-plus model. We take our costs, add a margin, and there's the final sticker price. The reason prices haven't fallen as much as one might expect on unsold units is because they're hitting the "cost floor"; developers don't want to lose money, unless they are given no other option.
But for this rental fund model to work at reasonable costs of debt, I suspect that, in many/most cases, deals will need to be struck below a developer's cost basis. So, it'll be very interesting to watch how this fund deploys capital and who the winners and losers are in this market.
Regardless, I think it is good that we are seeing this sort of activity. The faster we deal with the pain, the faster we'll get to the other side.
Cover photo by Patrick Boucher on Unsplash
Development fees have ZERO impact on what a typical buyer is willing to spend on a home.
They only impact the price a builder needs to sell at to make a profit.
Urbanation just released its Q3-2025 condominium market survey results for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Last quarter, a total of 319 new condominium apartments were sold across the entire region. This is the lowest quarterly total since Q3-1990 and is 92% below the latest 10-year average for Q3 periods. It also places us on track for the worst sales year in about three and a half decades. But this isn't news to anyone in the industry. And I'll remind you all that, in my view, now is the time for contrarianism, not conformity.
Here's something I found interesting in the data, though, and it ties into the above quote tweet. The average prices for unsold condominiums in Q3 were as follows:
$1,315 psf for unsold pre-construction suites (i.e. projects in the pre-sale period)
$1,199 psf for unsold developer-owned suites (i.e. remaining inventory in built projects)
$867 psf for resales in recently completed buildings
Why do you think there's this gradient? The answer is that these are condominiums of different vintages and, therefore, of different cost structures. Developers generally price projects on a cost-plus basis — meaning if development charges go up (see above tweet), then developers have no choice but to raise home prices to cover their costs. And if the market isn't there at these new higher prices, well then too bad for developers. We don't get to build. The floor is the floor.
In economic terms, what is happening right now is that the marginal cost of producing new condominium homes exceeds the marginal benefit to home buyers (i.e. costs are greater than what the market is willing to pay for new condominium homes). And for this to change, one or both of the following adjustments will need to occur. The cost of building will need to come down and/or the price buyers are willing to pay for new homes will need to go up. Until then, Urbanation will continue to publish gnarly market updates.
But while the market works to find a new equilibrium, I do think it's disingenuous to try and detach the cost of building new homes from end-user prices (which is what the above quote tweet seems to do). Increasing the marginal cost of a good forces prices to rise. In turn, the quantity demanded falls because fewer people can afford it. And if the demand curve also shifts to the left, which is what happened starting in 2022, then the quantity demanded can even approach zero (see second chart).
Pretending we can heavily tax housing and not pay the price doesn’t help anyone looking for more affordable options.