Longtime readers of this blog might remember a post that I published back in 2016 where I talked about the genesis story of Toronto-based developer David Wex and his company Urban Capital Property Group. In it, I wrote about his first project at 29 Camden Street in the Fashion District. It had a total of 55 condominium suites and an average price per square foot of ~$195. And it took somewhere around 2 years to pre-sell enough of the suites for construction financing.

The reason I bring this up today is because when I originally wrote the post, it seemed so far from reality. In 2016, I said that these same 55 suites could be sold within 2 hours at $800 psf! But now things have changed once again. The market realities that David was facing in the mid-90s with Camden Lofts feel remarkably similar to today. Selling even 55 suites might not be a sure thing. And this is the first time in over 2 decades that the market has been like this.

So for fun, let's consider what happened in the late 80s and 90s. The Toronto housing market peaked in 1989 at an average price of approximately $273,698 (according to the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board). It then went on to decline 27% over the next 7 years, finally bottoming out at approximately $198,150 in 1996. So it took around 8 years for the market to stabilize.

Of course, the market took even longer to return to its 1989 peak. The average home price crossed $275,000 in 2002, which means it took 13 years in nominal dollars. However, $275k in 1989 is the equivalent of around $610k in today's dollars. So in real dollars, it actually took until 2011 for the market to return to its prior peak, which is some 22 years later!

I'm not arguing that the exact same thing will play out with this cycle. Who knows, Toronto is a different city. But I have suggested that 2028 could be the year where we're on the other side of this downturn. The average home price peaked, most recently, in 2022 at ~$1,194,600. Since then, it has come down by around 8.5% (as a broad average). If the market does turn positive in 2028, that'll be 6 years after the peak.

Only time will tell.

Chart from the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board; cover photo by Melvin Lai on Unsplash

Here is a recent chart from Mike Moffat showing how much development charges have increased in the City of Toronto from 2009 to today:

We've, of course, seen this before. Back in 2020, I shared an article that developer Urban Capital published where they did a cost comparison between a project they had done in 2005 and a project they were doing in 2020. What they uncovered was that development charges alone had increased by 3,244%! The most of any line item in their pro forma.

Development charges over the last real estate cycle have been an insidious problem. Meaning, the industry knew they were crazy high, and we were all trying to be vocal about it, but let's face it -- the general public doesn't have a lot of sympathy for developers complaining about high fees. They are also largely hidden from purchasers and renters. The charges just get lumped in.

If our industry could figure out how to be more transparent and separate out these charges, much like a sales tax, I think it would go a long way to showing consumers what they're actually paying when it comes to new housing. And then maybe something positive would happen. Because this is a major reason why new housing has gotten so expensive in this region.

Can you imagine if property taxes had increased by 3,244% over the last 15 years? I can't. Because no one would have ever allowed that to happen.

For better and for worse, the current market is going to serve as a rude awakening for municipalities. We've reached the breaking point. The housing market is, as we've talked about, in a "state of economic lockdown." And when people don't buy new homes, it means developers no longer have the money to pay development charges.

The typical way to do it looks something like this:

• Hire a creative agency

• Come up with a new name and brand identity that speaks to your target market

• Create a new website and new social media accounts

• Start marketing the project with this new single-purpose brand and identity in the forefront (the developer's brand is usually far less prominent)

Of course, this is the typical way and things do vary. What I would like to discuss today is this last point: the interrelationship between new project-specific brands and developer brands. Because in most other industries, the brand of the company is paramount. It is everything. When BMW releases a new car model, it is BMW and then the something. It is not the something, with BMW hidden at the bottom of the page.

So why is real estate any different?

One possible explanation is the entrepreneurial and opportunistic nature of development. New projects are often the result of people and groups coming together to make a specific "deal" happen. And unless you're an established player with a long history, you may not have a consumer-facing brand with much equity in it. So you rely on a new single-purpose one instead.

But perhaps the main reason is that, as an industry, we have never really succeeded at making buildings a product (architects sometimes despise when you call buildings this). It is for this reason that every building can feel like a prototype and that prefabrication remains this dream that never seems to become a reality. A product implies something repeatable and producible at scale. And buildings are generally not that. Every market and site are unique.

All of this said, there are ways that developers are building meaningful brands for themselves.

The first way is to obviously focus on building your own brand alongside or in lieu of strong project brands. One example of this is Toronto-based Urban Capital. They build a specific kind of condominium building/product and, to the extent that it's possible, it doesn't change whether they're building in Saskatoon or in Halifax. David Wex, one of the partners, describes this as branded vs. opportunistic real estate development.

Another example is Toronto-based Fitzrovia (which I wrote about, here). They are one of if not the most active rental developers in the city. And if you go into one of their apartment buildings, you'll find the same No. 10 Dean coffee shop and bar in the lobby; the same rooftop pool (called LIDO); the same gym (called The Temple); and the list goes on. Their goal is to build a consistent and hospitality-like experience for apartments.

The second way to go about building a brand is to make it so attractive that other developers will pay you to use it. The best example that I can think of is London-based YOO. A partnership between John Hitchcox (a developer) and famed designer Philippe Starck, they have built a business out of creating branded residences for third-party developer clients. And this is in some ways the holy grail of development: you get paid without taking on the risk of building.

Of course, this same licensing model is also used with hotels. And hotel brands are globally the most common kind of branded residence. What this obviously tells us is that brands matter a great deal in real estate. They matter so much that developers will pay to use the right one, because it will likely command a premium and it will likely increase sales/leasing velocity.

It is for this reason that I've always felt it important to grow the parent brand alongside any project-level brands. And it's why we never bother creating new social accounts for our individual development projects. Brand building takes time. If you're going to invest time and money into one, why not take advantage of the compounding at the very top of the house.

Longtime readers of this blog might remember a post that I published back in 2016 where I talked about the genesis story of Toronto-based developer David Wex and his company Urban Capital Property Group. In it, I wrote about his first project at 29 Camden Street in the Fashion District. It had a total of 55 condominium suites and an average price per square foot of ~$195. And it took somewhere around 2 years to pre-sell enough of the suites for construction financing.

The reason I bring this up today is because when I originally wrote the post, it seemed so far from reality. In 2016, I said that these same 55 suites could be sold within 2 hours at $800 psf! But now things have changed once again. The market realities that David was facing in the mid-90s with Camden Lofts feel remarkably similar to today. Selling even 55 suites might not be a sure thing. And this is the first time in over 2 decades that the market has been like this.

So for fun, let's consider what happened in the late 80s and 90s. The Toronto housing market peaked in 1989 at an average price of approximately $273,698 (according to the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board). It then went on to decline 27% over the next 7 years, finally bottoming out at approximately $198,150 in 1996. So it took around 8 years for the market to stabilize.

Of course, the market took even longer to return to its 1989 peak. The average home price crossed $275,000 in 2002, which means it took 13 years in nominal dollars. However, $275k in 1989 is the equivalent of around $610k in today's dollars. So in real dollars, it actually took until 2011 for the market to return to its prior peak, which is some 22 years later!

I'm not arguing that the exact same thing will play out with this cycle. Who knows, Toronto is a different city. But I have suggested that 2028 could be the year where we're on the other side of this downturn. The average home price peaked, most recently, in 2022 at ~$1,194,600. Since then, it has come down by around 8.5% (as a broad average). If the market does turn positive in 2028, that'll be 6 years after the peak.

Only time will tell.

Chart from the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board; cover photo by Melvin Lai on Unsplash

Here is a recent chart from Mike Moffat showing how much development charges have increased in the City of Toronto from 2009 to today:

We've, of course, seen this before. Back in 2020, I shared an article that developer Urban Capital published where they did a cost comparison between a project they had done in 2005 and a project they were doing in 2020. What they uncovered was that development charges alone had increased by 3,244%! The most of any line item in their pro forma.

Development charges over the last real estate cycle have been an insidious problem. Meaning, the industry knew they were crazy high, and we were all trying to be vocal about it, but let's face it -- the general public doesn't have a lot of sympathy for developers complaining about high fees. They are also largely hidden from purchasers and renters. The charges just get lumped in.

If our industry could figure out how to be more transparent and separate out these charges, much like a sales tax, I think it would go a long way to showing consumers what they're actually paying when it comes to new housing. And then maybe something positive would happen. Because this is a major reason why new housing has gotten so expensive in this region.

Can you imagine if property taxes had increased by 3,244% over the last 15 years? I can't. Because no one would have ever allowed that to happen.

For better and for worse, the current market is going to serve as a rude awakening for municipalities. We've reached the breaking point. The housing market is, as we've talked about, in a "state of economic lockdown." And when people don't buy new homes, it means developers no longer have the money to pay development charges.

The typical way to do it looks something like this:

• Hire a creative agency

• Come up with a new name and brand identity that speaks to your target market

• Create a new website and new social media accounts

• Start marketing the project with this new single-purpose brand and identity in the forefront (the developer's brand is usually far less prominent)

Of course, this is the typical way and things do vary. What I would like to discuss today is this last point: the interrelationship between new project-specific brands and developer brands. Because in most other industries, the brand of the company is paramount. It is everything. When BMW releases a new car model, it is BMW and then the something. It is not the something, with BMW hidden at the bottom of the page.

So why is real estate any different?

One possible explanation is the entrepreneurial and opportunistic nature of development. New projects are often the result of people and groups coming together to make a specific "deal" happen. And unless you're an established player with a long history, you may not have a consumer-facing brand with much equity in it. So you rely on a new single-purpose one instead.

But perhaps the main reason is that, as an industry, we have never really succeeded at making buildings a product (architects sometimes despise when you call buildings this). It is for this reason that every building can feel like a prototype and that prefabrication remains this dream that never seems to become a reality. A product implies something repeatable and producible at scale. And buildings are generally not that. Every market and site are unique.

All of this said, there are ways that developers are building meaningful brands for themselves.

The first way is to obviously focus on building your own brand alongside or in lieu of strong project brands. One example of this is Toronto-based Urban Capital. They build a specific kind of condominium building/product and, to the extent that it's possible, it doesn't change whether they're building in Saskatoon or in Halifax. David Wex, one of the partners, describes this as branded vs. opportunistic real estate development.

Another example is Toronto-based Fitzrovia (which I wrote about, here). They are one of if not the most active rental developers in the city. And if you go into one of their apartment buildings, you'll find the same No. 10 Dean coffee shop and bar in the lobby; the same rooftop pool (called LIDO); the same gym (called The Temple); and the list goes on. Their goal is to build a consistent and hospitality-like experience for apartments.

The second way to go about building a brand is to make it so attractive that other developers will pay you to use it. The best example that I can think of is London-based YOO. A partnership between John Hitchcox (a developer) and famed designer Philippe Starck, they have built a business out of creating branded residences for third-party developer clients. And this is in some ways the holy grail of development: you get paid without taking on the risk of building.

Of course, this same licensing model is also used with hotels. And hotel brands are globally the most common kind of branded residence. What this obviously tells us is that brands matter a great deal in real estate. They matter so much that developers will pay to use the right one, because it will likely command a premium and it will likely increase sales/leasing velocity.

It is for this reason that I've always felt it important to grow the parent brand alongside any project-level brands. And it's why we never bother creating new social accounts for our individual development projects. Brand building takes time. If you're going to invest time and money into one, why not take advantage of the compounding at the very top of the house.