On my way back from Philadelphia this past weekend I wrote a post called, The Philadelphia (real estate) story. It was about how opposite the market is in Philly compared to Toronto.
After writing that post and because of a discussion in the comment section, I started thinking about condo vs. rental apartment development across the US. Because unlike cities such as Toronto and Vancouver, it struck me that – outside of maybe New York and Miami – most U.S. cities are really not building a lot of for sale condos. And if you’re from Toronto or Vancouver, I bet that feels odd to you.
But what exactly is that number?
As of the first quarter of 2015, condos as a percentage of all new multifamily (apartment) construction in the US was only 5.5%. That’s a tiny number and is down from over 50% before the Great Recession, which means most cities in the US really are building mostly rental. Last year the US built 264,000 multifamily units across 11,000 buildings.
So why is that happening?
There appears to be a number of factors, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal.
There’s a supply side constraint:
Another obstacle cited by developers: construction loans. Matt Allen, chief operating officer of the Related Group, a developer based in Miami, said he can get a construction loan for roughly 75% of the cost of building an apartment complex. But lenders will cover only 50%, on average, of a condo complex’s cost because of the greater risk, he said.
There’s a demand side constraint:
As a result, the Federal Housing Administration, which backs mortgages made to low-wealth buyers, tightened its lending standards in a series of moves from 2008 to 2012. Under the new rules, in order for the FHA to insure mortgages in a given condo complex, at least half of the units must be owner-occupied and no more than half can be FHA-insured, among other requirements. For condo projects under development, at least 30% of units must be under contract for sale before the FHA will start backing mortgages there. Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tightened their standards as well.
And there are macroeconomic factors:
On the entry-level end, tepid job growth early in the recovery and the younger generation’s affinity for flexibility have fueled demand for rentals. Apartment rents are up nearly 16% since 2010, according to Reis Inc.
Notwithstanding the above, could this be a post-recession policy pendulum that has swung too far in one direction?
Every year the London-based property consultancy Knight Frank publishes something called The Wealth Report. And it’s one of those reports that I could go through for hours.
It includes a ton of really fascinating stats that speak volumes about where in the world wealth is being created and how it’s moving around. And of course there are a lot of connections between wealth, real estate, and city building.
Below are 3 diagrams that really stood out for me in the 2015 version.
The first diagram shows which cities have the most Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs). An UHNWI is defined as an individual with assets exceeding US$30 million, but excluding personal assets and property (such as one’s principal residence). Click here to see the full size image (I know the numbers are small).
Real estate is a local business. And this weekend in Philadelphia really reminded me of that.
Here’s what I mean.
The real estate story in Toronto is condos. We’re buildings lots and lots of condos. When my friend from Chicago recently visited Toronto for the first time, he told me that it feels very similar to Chicago, except that we have modern glass condo towers going up everywhere and they don’t. That’s our story right now.
Low-rise housing in Toronto is becoming increasingly unaffordable (the average price of a detached home is well north of $1M) and so high-rise condos are now what many people can afford. When young people in Toronto talk about buying their first place, that now usually means a condo.
But that’s not the story in Philadelphia.
In Philadelphia, you can buy a 1,600 square foot, 2 storey, 2 bedroom rowhouse in a respectable neighborhood for sub US$400,000. And in speaking with my friends in Philly this weekend, that’s what young people are buying.
This doesn’t mean that Philadelphia isn’t building new high-rise condos and apartments. It is. Obviously nowhere near as many as Toronto. But it is building. Far more than when I lived there before the Great Recession.
However, the condo market is typically more upmarket. The target market isn’t so much first time buyers and the mass market; it’s more people who want full floor apartments in Rittenhouse Square. (I’m exaggerating only slightly.)
Philadelphia is also building more rental towers than condo towers. (Rental has only recently become fashionable again in Toronto.)
I’m guessing that a lot of this has to do with the fact that Philadelphia draws in a lot of transient students and academics each year. In fact, the most noticeably changed area from when I lived in Philly was University City. That’s the area that houses the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University.
So there seems to be strong demand for new rental housing in the city. I’m told vacancies are very low. But when it comes time to buy, young people don’t look to condos like they do in Toronto. They are looking mostly to rowhouses.
This is interesting to me because it’s the exact opposite of Toronto. In Toronto, low-rise is expensive and so lots more people are buying high-rise. In Philadelphia, high-rise is expensive and so people are buying low-rise.
I guess that’s why they say real estate is a local business. What works in one city may not work in another.
On my way back from Philadelphia this past weekend I wrote a post called, The Philadelphia (real estate) story. It was about how opposite the market is in Philly compared to Toronto.
After writing that post and because of a discussion in the comment section, I started thinking about condo vs. rental apartment development across the US. Because unlike cities such as Toronto and Vancouver, it struck me that – outside of maybe New York and Miami – most U.S. cities are really not building a lot of for sale condos. And if you’re from Toronto or Vancouver, I bet that feels odd to you.
But what exactly is that number?
As of the first quarter of 2015, condos as a percentage of all new multifamily (apartment) construction in the US was only 5.5%. That’s a tiny number and is down from over 50% before the Great Recession, which means most cities in the US really are building mostly rental. Last year the US built 264,000 multifamily units across 11,000 buildings.
So why is that happening?
There appears to be a number of factors, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal.
There’s a supply side constraint:
Another obstacle cited by developers: construction loans. Matt Allen, chief operating officer of the Related Group, a developer based in Miami, said he can get a construction loan for roughly 75% of the cost of building an apartment complex. But lenders will cover only 50%, on average, of a condo complex’s cost because of the greater risk, he said.
There’s a demand side constraint:
As a result, the Federal Housing Administration, which backs mortgages made to low-wealth buyers, tightened its lending standards in a series of moves from 2008 to 2012. Under the new rules, in order for the FHA to insure mortgages in a given condo complex, at least half of the units must be owner-occupied and no more than half can be FHA-insured, among other requirements. For condo projects under development, at least 30% of units must be under contract for sale before the FHA will start backing mortgages there. Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tightened their standards as well.
And there are macroeconomic factors:
On the entry-level end, tepid job growth early in the recovery and the younger generation’s affinity for flexibility have fueled demand for rentals. Apartment rents are up nearly 16% since 2010, according to Reis Inc.
Notwithstanding the above, could this be a post-recession policy pendulum that has swung too far in one direction?
Every year the London-based property consultancy Knight Frank publishes something called The Wealth Report. And it’s one of those reports that I could go through for hours.
It includes a ton of really fascinating stats that speak volumes about where in the world wealth is being created and how it’s moving around. And of course there are a lot of connections between wealth, real estate, and city building.
Below are 3 diagrams that really stood out for me in the 2015 version.
The first diagram shows which cities have the most Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs). An UHNWI is defined as an individual with assets exceeding US$30 million, but excluding personal assets and property (such as one’s principal residence). Click here to see the full size image (I know the numbers are small).
Real estate is a local business. And this weekend in Philadelphia really reminded me of that.
Here’s what I mean.
The real estate story in Toronto is condos. We’re buildings lots and lots of condos. When my friend from Chicago recently visited Toronto for the first time, he told me that it feels very similar to Chicago, except that we have modern glass condo towers going up everywhere and they don’t. That’s our story right now.
Low-rise housing in Toronto is becoming increasingly unaffordable (the average price of a detached home is well north of $1M) and so high-rise condos are now what many people can afford. When young people in Toronto talk about buying their first place, that now usually means a condo.
But that’s not the story in Philadelphia.
In Philadelphia, you can buy a 1,600 square foot, 2 storey, 2 bedroom rowhouse in a respectable neighborhood for sub US$400,000. And in speaking with my friends in Philly this weekend, that’s what young people are buying.
This doesn’t mean that Philadelphia isn’t building new high-rise condos and apartments. It is. Obviously nowhere near as many as Toronto. But it is building. Far more than when I lived there before the Great Recession.
However, the condo market is typically more upmarket. The target market isn’t so much first time buyers and the mass market; it’s more people who want full floor apartments in Rittenhouse Square. (I’m exaggerating only slightly.)
Philadelphia is also building more rental towers than condo towers. (Rental has only recently become fashionable again in Toronto.)
I’m guessing that a lot of this has to do with the fact that Philadelphia draws in a lot of transient students and academics each year. In fact, the most noticeably changed area from when I lived in Philly was University City. That’s the area that houses the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University.
So there seems to be strong demand for new rental housing in the city. I’m told vacancies are very low. But when it comes time to buy, young people don’t look to condos like they do in Toronto. They are looking mostly to rowhouses.
This is interesting to me because it’s the exact opposite of Toronto. In Toronto, low-rise is expensive and so lots more people are buying high-rise. In Philadelphia, high-rise is expensive and so people are buying low-rise.
I guess that’s why they say real estate is a local business. What works in one city may not work in another.
Not surprisingly, London (4,364), Tokyo (3,575), Singapore (3,227), New York (3,008), and Hong Kong (2,690) are at the top of the list. But I was a little surprised – albeit happily surprised – to see Toronto (1,216) come in at #2 in North America, beating out Mexico City (1,116), Los Angeles (969), and Chicago (827).
The second diagram shows you how many square meters of luxury property (apartment) you can buy for US$1 million in a bunch of different cities around the world.
In Monaco (top end), that’ll buy you 17 square meters (183 square feet) and in Cape Town (bottom end), that’ll buy you 208 square meters (2,196 square feet).
The third and last diagram is what they call the global pyramid of wealth. It’s a pyramid of everyone in the world and then the number of millionaires, UHNWIs (see above), centa-millionaires, and billionaires. And if you do the math, the top of this pyramid comes nowhere close to 1% of the global population.
It’s fascinating (and exciting) to see where and how global wealth is concentrating. But it should also make you think about rising income inequality. I know it does for me.
Not surprisingly, London (4,364), Tokyo (3,575), Singapore (3,227), New York (3,008), and Hong Kong (2,690) are at the top of the list. But I was a little surprised – albeit happily surprised – to see Toronto (1,216) come in at #2 in North America, beating out Mexico City (1,116), Los Angeles (969), and Chicago (827).
The second diagram shows you how many square meters of luxury property (apartment) you can buy for US$1 million in a bunch of different cities around the world.
In Monaco (top end), that’ll buy you 17 square meters (183 square feet) and in Cape Town (bottom end), that’ll buy you 208 square meters (2,196 square feet).
The third and last diagram is what they call the global pyramid of wealth. It’s a pyramid of everyone in the world and then the number of millionaires, UHNWIs (see above), centa-millionaires, and billionaires. And if you do the math, the top of this pyramid comes nowhere close to 1% of the global population.
It’s fascinating (and exciting) to see where and how global wealth is concentrating. But it should also make you think about rising income inequality. I know it does for me.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
