2025 was a tough year to be a real estate developer in Toronto. And it was a tough year for a whole host of reasons, not all of which you might immediately expect. In addition to it being challenging (and in some cases impossible) to underwrite new projects, raise capital, sell pre-construction homes and many other things, it was also a challenging market from a psychological standpoint.
Real estate development is a business that arguably attracts "Type-A" personalities. These are people who stereotypically tend to be ambitious, driven, competitive, and impatient. Said differently, they tend to have a strong bias toward action and a strong internal locus of control. I'm certainly programmed this way. I have a real problem with free time, and I'm at my happiest when I'm achieving things. I'm sure that many of you are the same way.
However, when the market is soft or shut off, the primary modus operandi of action gets neutralized. And since people with a strong internal locus of control believe that it is their individual actions that directly lead to successes and failures, this can create a psychological crisis. Am I the one failing? Is there anything else that I could be doing to create action, right now? (Simply waiting could be the correct answer.)
The older I get, the more I realize that an important skill in life and business is managing your own psychology. In fact, it may be the most important skill of all. So, what I have been doing as of late is continually reframing the current market. Rather than focusing on what's not happening, I like to remind myself that this market is surely presenting the greatest set of opportunities that I have seen in my real estate career.
It may not feel like the typical kind of action right now, but everything is strategic preparation.
Cover photo by Jānis Beitiņš on Unsplash
It has now been almost a year since New York City implemented its congestion charge for the area of Manhattan south of 60th Street and, despite all of the critics, the results are overwhelmingly positive. Here are some of the most important data points:
Pollution is down by as much as 22% in the congestion zone area.
Traffic has declined by about 11% in the zone. As a reminder, traffic improved basically immediately following the $9 charge.
An average of 71,500 fewer vehicles entered the zone each day from January through to November 2025, totalling nearly 24 million fewer vehicles.
The congestion charge is forecasted to bring in $548.3 million in 2025, beating the initial goal of $500 million. (This revenue will be used by the MTA for bond issuances that will in turn fund further infrastructure improvements.)
Importantly, foot traffic in the zone is also up year-over-year compared to Manhattan as a whole (3.5% versus 1.4%, respectively).
Storefront vacancies in the zone declined more rapidly compared to Manhattan as a whole and the rest of the city. (Though the vacancy rate is still the highest in this area, presumably because of the higher rents in downtown and midtown.)
New York City's sales tax revenue is also up 6.3% this year compared to the same period last year, outperforming all neighboring counties. This suggests that the congestion charge is not keeping shoppers away.
So, why
One of the basic principles behind rent control policies is that you're trying to make housing more affordable for some, while at the same time more expensive for others. Economics is the study of choice, and this is a choice, whether it gets talked about or not. Previously, we spoke about a memo from Howard Marks where he describes the impact of rent control in New York City. In economic terms, that impact looks like this:
Some people who couldn't afford to live in New York City if rents were set by the free market get the opportunity to live in the city (their housing is more affordable)
Other people who would like to live in New York City and could afford higher rents can't because there are no available apartments (rent controls reduce housing supply)
And lastly, landlords with unregulated apartments can command higher rents than would be the case if new housing supply were not being discouraged (their housing is more expensive)
Today, let's talk about a recent research paper (June 2025) published in the Journal of Housing Economics called, "Rent control and the supply of affordable housing." What the authors discovered was the following:
Restrictive rent control reforms are associated with a 10% reduction in the total number of rental units available in a city
Restrictive rent control reforms led to an increase in the availability of units affordable to extremely low-income households
This was offset by a decline in the availability of units to other income groups, particularly those at slightly higher affordability thresholds
Once again, we see the economic trade-offs inherent in supply-side interventions like rent control. It's better for some and worse for others. However, governments tend to favor it because it's "free" to them; the costs are borne by landlords and renters at higher affordability thresholds. I'll let all of you comment on whether you think this is good or bad, but regardless, I think it's crucial that we acknowledge the trade-offs being made.
2025 was a tough year to be a real estate developer in Toronto. And it was a tough year for a whole host of reasons, not all of which you might immediately expect. In addition to it being challenging (and in some cases impossible) to underwrite new projects, raise capital, sell pre-construction homes and many other things, it was also a challenging market from a psychological standpoint.
Real estate development is a business that arguably attracts "Type-A" personalities. These are people who stereotypically tend to be ambitious, driven, competitive, and impatient. Said differently, they tend to have a strong bias toward action and a strong internal locus of control. I'm certainly programmed this way. I have a real problem with free time, and I'm at my happiest when I'm achieving things. I'm sure that many of you are the same way.
However, when the market is soft or shut off, the primary modus operandi of action gets neutralized. And since people with a strong internal locus of control believe that it is their individual actions that directly lead to successes and failures, this can create a psychological crisis. Am I the one failing? Is there anything else that I could be doing to create action, right now? (Simply waiting could be the correct answer.)
The older I get, the more I realize that an important skill in life and business is managing your own psychology. In fact, it may be the most important skill of all. So, what I have been doing as of late is continually reframing the current market. Rather than focusing on what's not happening, I like to remind myself that this market is surely presenting the greatest set of opportunities that I have seen in my real estate career.
It may not feel like the typical kind of action right now, but everything is strategic preparation.
Cover photo by Jānis Beitiņš on Unsplash
It has now been almost a year since New York City implemented its congestion charge for the area of Manhattan south of 60th Street and, despite all of the critics, the results are overwhelmingly positive. Here are some of the most important data points:
Pollution is down by as much as 22% in the congestion zone area.
Traffic has declined by about 11% in the zone. As a reminder, traffic improved basically immediately following the $9 charge.
An average of 71,500 fewer vehicles entered the zone each day from January through to November 2025, totalling nearly 24 million fewer vehicles.
The congestion charge is forecasted to bring in $548.3 million in 2025, beating the initial goal of $500 million. (This revenue will be used by the MTA for bond issuances that will in turn fund further infrastructure improvements.)
Importantly, foot traffic in the zone is also up year-over-year compared to Manhattan as a whole (3.5% versus 1.4%, respectively).
Storefront vacancies in the zone declined more rapidly compared to Manhattan as a whole and the rest of the city. (Though the vacancy rate is still the highest in this area, presumably because of the higher rents in downtown and midtown.)
New York City's sales tax revenue is also up 6.3% this year compared to the same period last year, outperforming all neighboring counties. This suggests that the congestion charge is not keeping shoppers away.
So, why
One of the basic principles behind rent control policies is that you're trying to make housing more affordable for some, while at the same time more expensive for others. Economics is the study of choice, and this is a choice, whether it gets talked about or not. Previously, we spoke about a memo from Howard Marks where he describes the impact of rent control in New York City. In economic terms, that impact looks like this:
Some people who couldn't afford to live in New York City if rents were set by the free market get the opportunity to live in the city (their housing is more affordable)
Other people who would like to live in New York City and could afford higher rents can't because there are no available apartments (rent controls reduce housing supply)
And lastly, landlords with unregulated apartments can command higher rents than would be the case if new housing supply were not being discouraged (their housing is more expensive)
Today, let's talk about a recent research paper (June 2025) published in the Journal of Housing Economics called, "Rent control and the supply of affordable housing." What the authors discovered was the following:
Restrictive rent control reforms are associated with a 10% reduction in the total number of rental units available in a city
Restrictive rent control reforms led to an increase in the availability of units affordable to extremely low-income households
This was offset by a decline in the availability of units to other income groups, particularly those at slightly higher affordability thresholds
Once again, we see the economic trade-offs inherent in supply-side interventions like rent control. It's better for some and worse for others. However, governments tend to favor it because it's "free" to them; the costs are borne by landlords and renters at higher affordability thresholds. I'll let all of you comment on whether you think this is good or bad, but regardless, I think it's crucial that we acknowledge the trade-offs being made.
Cover photo by ian dooley on Unsplash
Cover photo by Benjamin Ashton on Unsplash
Cover photo by ian dooley on Unsplash
Cover photo by Benjamin Ashton on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
