Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
The desire to add more housing to single-family neighborhoods will continue to pick up steam across North America. How exactly this plays out will be market specific, but in Toronto I expect to see new planning policies put in place, as well as supportive building code changes.
And this continues to happen. Right now, the City of Toronto is working on making fourplexes permissible in all low-rise neighborhoods across the city.
This is exciting. But it’s not done yet. And it’s not perfect.
The biggest change that I think still needs to happen is around maximum densities. If we actually want to encourage more missing middle housing, we need to increase the permitted FSIs or, better yet, remove them all together.
Urban planner Sean Galbraith does a good job of explaining this in NRU:
I responded to the city’s multiplex survey last night and this was one of my main comments. If you’d also like to voice your opinion, you have until March 10, 2023. Here’s the link.
As I mentioned yesterday, I am not a structural engineer. However, my friend James Cranford is. He is Principal at Stephenson Engineering and he was nice enough to answer a few of my questions about soft story buildings (storey if you’re Canadian).
BD: What is a soft (or weak) storey building? And why is it such an important design challenge, even in a very un-seismic city like Toronto?
JC: A soft storey refers to any level in a building that has LESS capacity than the level above. This means it has both less strength to resist loads and less stiffness so that it will move more than the levels above. Soft stories are one of the most significant challenges that many modern building designers face because they are one of the most likely ways that a building can fail catastrophically if not properly designed. A soft storey failure occurs when the building hinges above the weak level and the columns below can no longer support the load of the building above as they become overstressed and loaded in ways they were never meant to act. This leads to a sudden, often pancake type collapse that is likely to bring down the entire building.
We see potential soft storey issues most commonly in mid to high-rise residential buildings that have either amenity or retail spaces at the ground floor. These are spaces that by nature are large and as open as possible. During design, the structural engineer needs to recognize this and compensate for the lost capacity in other ways. This is usually done through a combination of increasing the capacity of the remaining walls and adding new walls at the weak level that fit with the building layouts.
BD: What does the Ontario Building Code mandate in terms of soft storeys?
JC: The OBC generally does not permit soft stories in any form for buildings where people are likely to live, work or play. In critical infrastructure like hospitals which must remain fully functional in the event of a major earthquake, the OBC goes further and does not permit any ‘lateral force resisting elements’ like shear walls or steel frames to be discontinuous below. This means that if you have a wall on the 5th floor of a hospital, that wall must exist with equal or greater capacity on EVERY level below, without exception.
BD: How much more stringent is British Columbia, where there is greater seismic risk?
JC: The requirements in the British Columbia Building Code (BCBC) are almost identical to those in Ontario in this case. However, the seismic design forces will be much higher based on the potential for much larger earthquakes, so while buildings will generally be designed for a higher seismic capacity, they must be proportioned similarly to prevent soft stories.
BD: Speaking generally, what is usually required structurally in order to retrofit an existing soft storey building so that it can properly withstand things like earthquakes?
JC: The most common way to retrofit a soft-storey is to increase the capacity of the weak level. In smaller buildings this can usually be achieved by adding new ‘lateral-force-resisting elements’ like shear walls or moment/braced frames until the overall storey capacity matches or exceeds the capacity of the levels above. On larger buildings this becomes more complex, as the loads are much higher and simply adding capacity may not be either feasible or practical. Therefore a full structural analysis is usually required to find a solution that can be tailored to the unique structural and architectural conditions. This often involves a combination of increased capacity and the introduction of ductile detailing which will allow the building to dissipate seismic energy. This can be roughly thought of as a ‘bend but don’t break’ approach to surviving an earthquake.
In some jurisdictions, the extreme risk caused by (many) homes built with soft stories has prompted local governments to intervene. The City of San Francisco (as well as many other municipalities in California) have enacted ordinances requiring home owners to assess and upgrade their properties, including single family home with garages a the lowest level, to reduce the risk of soft-storey failure in an earthquake.
BD: Thanks for this, James.
I don’t usually do Q&As on this blog, so let me know in the comment section below if you found this one valuable and if you’d like to see more of them.
I am not a structural engineer (or an architect for that matter). But one of the things that has come to greater light as a result of the devastating earthquake that hit Turkey & Syria last month is the number of “soft story buildings” throughout these countries.
Technically, a “soft story building” is exactly what the name suggests. It is a building where one floor is less than 70% as stiff as the floor above it, or less than 80% as stiff as the average of the three floors above it (source).
The typical application of this is a ground floor that has less structure (missing shear walls for example) and is more open. And it is usually done to accommodate things like parking and retail uses, and to, of course, build more cheaply.
However, there is a massive problem in that they are often structurally suboptimal! (Again, not a structural engineer.) This is why we saw so many of the buildings in Turkey “pancake” during its earthquake. The ground floor failed and then it brought down the rest of the building.
I can appreciate that retrofitting older buildings is both difficult and expensive; but it is inexcusable to not work toward that and it is certainly inexcusable to not mandate that every new building meet whatever building codes are required to save lives.
Big Ben Myers of Bullpen Consulting doesn’t usually have strong opinions on Twitter (obviously joking), but I did see him respond to this tweet this morning:
During significant downturns, developers can’t sell the units, and can’t get financing to build rentals. It has nothing to do with their intelligence. https://t.co/7G7n4B65CI
The assertion he is responding to is basically this: “developers are stupid because they tend to hold onto land during downturns, instead of building through them.” On some level, I think I know where this line of thinking is coming from. It’s the whole Warren Buffet philosophy of “being fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.”
But what it ignores is development feasibility. Developers typically rely heavily on the availability of debt financing. First you need land financing in order to acquire the land, and then, once you have your entitlements, condominium pre-sales and/or any other requirements in place, you move onto a construction loan (which often “takes out” your land loan).
Maybe you have deep enough pockets to fund everything with cash, but most of the time that is not the case. And so if these debt facilities are not available to you, then you are not building.
The other part of this equation is that, during downturns, it can be harder to forecast your future revenues. What can I sell/rent this space for, and how long will it take to absorb? These are difficult questions in the best of times, but they’re even more difficult when you don’t have a lot of market activity/comparables to point to.
All of this contributes to debt being less available, especially for smaller developers. It also makes new sites difficult to underwrite. Because as we have talked about many times before on this blog, land should be the residual claimant in a development pro forma. Revenue minus development costs equals how much you can afford to pay for land.
If the math doesn’t work and if you can’t get financing, it almost certainly doesn’t matter how much “leading” you feel like doing. You’re not building.
This is a fascinating interview with John Andrew Entwistle, the founder of vacation rental company Wander. The way to understand Wander is that it is a vertically integrated travel company. So unlike Airbnb, for example, Wander owns all of their real estate (vacation homes in top destinations), they property manage, they asset manage, and they are building out the technology required to connect all of this stuff.
They have also created what they are calling the first ever vacation rental REIT, which means that you can buy a piece of their real estate portfolio (currently 13 properties). In addition to being a source of cash, this creates an interesting flywheel effect where maybe you stay in a Wander and then decide to become an investor in their REIT, or vice versa.
Eventually though, Wander hopes to be just as asset light as Airbnb (which again, doesn’t own any real estate; they’re a booking platform). The idea is that REIT unit holders will ultimately own the real estate and they will be the asset manager / technology platform that sits on top. But that they will still control the entire travel experience.
John also gets into some of the specifics of how they run their business. For example, in each destination, they hire local cleaning crews and handy people (who are not Wander employees). They typically spend about 7% of the value of a property to furnish it (which is typically around $80-150k per property right now). And their average order size is around $4.5k, which suggests that people are willing to pay a premium for this vertically integrated travel experience.
If you drive around the Cottonwood Heights neighborhood in Salt Lake City, which I have done multiple times over the last year, you will invariably see lawn signs shouting for “no gondola!” And the reason for this is that last summer, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) came forward with its preferred solution to traffic congestion in Little Cottonwood Canyon: an eight-mile long gondola all the way up and into the mountains. If built, this would apparently be the longest and most expensive urban gondola in the world.
To try and explain why this is being recommended, I’ll give the example of what happened to us when we were there last week. We drove into Little Cottonwood Canyon on Tuesday morning when it was not snowing. We left Park City around 8am, passed through the valley (Salt Lake City), and arrived at Snowbird (resort) in around 45 minutes. This is normally how long it takes. But on the way up it started snowing, and it didn’t stop all day. (Nice!) So our drive home took significantly longer and looked like this (we were going 8-10 miles per hour all the way down):
This is what happens when it snows in the canyons. Which is why a wise bartender at one of the resorts advised us that, “on powder days, you need to leave the valley at 6AM. Because at some point, some asshole is going to think they can get up the canyon in a Tesla, and they will ruin it for everyone. It’s better to nap in your car at the resort than white knuckle for 2-3 hours.” During our drive home, we learned that he was not at all joking. This is what happens. And it is why UDOT wants to build one really long urban gondola.
Gondolas are low-capacity vehicles that quickly get cramped if turned into high capacity ones. They don’t work well for multiple stops. As a result, they are a point-to-point transportation method with low capacity. They are also expensive, especially relative to how many people they might serve, making them financially unattractive options for most applications. At their best, gondolas work when traversing difficult terrain with a consistent but low ridership, which is why they’re most often deployed on ski resorts.
But this situation is maybe a bit unique. It’s kind of urban transport, but really it’s for people to get up the canyon and shred deep powder. Here’s more on how it might work:
The Cottonwood Canyon gondola would be a hybrid of sorts between urban transportation solution and resort-based gondola. The proposal is to build a massive 2,500-spot parking garage at the base of the canyon, about 20 miles from downtown and the airport, where people will park. They will then ride the gondola for 27 minutes to Snowbird or 37 minutes to Alta, a trip duration which has no parallel in the urban or resort gondola scene (the Snowbird tram, one of the most famous in the world, fits more than 100 people per tram but takes less than 10 minutes to ride). Even though the gondola would serve two ski resorts, it belongs more to the urban gondola concept because it is being proposed and recommended by the state’s transportation department as a solution to a recurring traffic problem.
As a snowboarder, this sounds great. But it is, of course, complicated. Conservation groups are objecting, and some/many taxpayers don’t want to pay for a gondola that will largely benefit two ski resorts. Especially one that doesn’t permit snowboarders (I made this part up). So we’ll see. A final decision is expected by UDOT this summer. In the meantime, if you’re interested in urban gondolas, check out this recent article in Vice Magazine by Aaron Gordon (quoted above). He does a good job explaining both sides of this debate. And if you are interested in this topic, I’d be curious to hear whether you think this is a good idea or not.
Okay, I really don’t want to make this — using ChatGPT to write my blog posts for me — a habit. But I was genuinely curious what would happen if I asked it to: “write a stereotypical NIMBY letter opposing a new housing development.” Here’s what it generated.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.
First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.
Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.
Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name]
I must say that I’m impressed. It is a solid 5-paragraph letter that follows a tried and true formula. First, the entire letter is sandwiched between thinly veiled statements around the importance of housing. Both the introduction and conclusion speak to “the need for affordable housing.”
And then in the middle of the letter, it hits on the holy trinity of opposition arguments: (1) overburdened/inadequate infrastructure, (2) neighborhood character, and (3) property values. I’m not sure there’s much to improve on here. These computers are good.
So if you happen to need one of these, you may want to try ChatGPT.
Knight Frank just published the 17th edition of its annual “The Wealth Report.” I have spoken about this report many times before on the blog because I generally find them really interesting. So today I’d like to share two items from this latest one.
The first item is their most recent Prime International Residential Index (PIRI). What this does is track prime residential prices across 100 key city, sun, and ski locations. “Prime”, in case you are wondering, is defined as the most desirable and most expensive properties in each market — generally the top 5%.
Look at Dubai go:
When I see a chart like this I usually start at the top and then immediately start scanning for Toronto. Here, it’s more or less in the middle with a 4.1% increase. Totally reasonable. Prime property in Auckland and Wellington, on the other hand, didn’t fair as well in 2022.
The second item is this very wonderful diagram showing flight connectivity before Covid (12 months to March 2020) and then post-Covid (12 months to December 2022):
The way to read this diagram is that the most connected cities — ranked by the number and quality of flight connections — get pushed toward the center. They also get bigger. Less connected cities, on the other hand, slide toward the edges. All of the cities also generally gravitate toward their main regional connections.
The most obvious change is the greatly weakened connectivity of Chinese cities. This is not surprising given their zero-Covid approach. Moscow also seems to get rightly pushed out to the side.
Another story is the continued rise of both Singapore (to the likely detriment of Hong Kong) and Dubai. I have only been to Dubai once, and I couldn’t figure out how to navigate its sea of roads and highways, or how to locate an actual city center where humans walk around (though the historic Bur Dubai area was interesting).
But there is no denying that Dubai has become a pretty important global city.
In 58 years of Berkshire management, most of my capital-allocation decisions have been no better than so-so. In some cases, also, bad moves by me have been rescued by very large doses of luck.
Our satisfactory results have been the product of about a dozen truly good decisions – that would be about one every five years – and a sometimes-forgotten advantage that favors long-term investors such as Berkshire.
The lesson for investors: The weeds wither away in significance as the flowers bloom. Over time, it takes just a few winners to work wonders. And, yes, it helps to start early and live into your 90s as well.
So-so decisions. Periodic moments of brilliance. And a long-term patient outlook. These are, I think, important things to keep in mind. It’s okay to make mistakes; you just have to keep going.
Last week, Sierra Communities (developer) and my friend Gabriel Fain (architect of Mackay Laneway House fame) submitted the above development proposal for 2760 Dundas Street West in the Junction. It is a beautiful proposal. So not surprisingly, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Here are the first batch of comments from Urban Toronto:
It also happens to be one block west of our Junction House project, so I definitely would have been annoyed if somebody proposed something ugly here. I am 99.9% biased, but I think the Junction has some of the best new mid-rise buildings in the city. Presumably, this is what “Mrgeosim” was getting at with their comment about “the number of good proposals for this neighbourhood.”
But here’s the thing. This is a relatively small proposal. It’s a 6-storey mid-rise building with 28 new homes on top of a tiny 482 square meter site (16m frontage). This makes it a challenging new development to execute on. So the fact that this is required to go through the typical rezoning and site plan processes is, in my opinion, a painful problem.
We should be doing everything we can to encourage these kinds of new housing developments all across the city. And that necessarily means removing as many barriers as possible. A pair of development applications and a few community meetings may seem benign, but they’re not. They add time and real costs that then need to be passed onto future residents.
There is also a very valid question around what kind of development charges (or impact fees) we should be levying on projects of this scale. If you want to build a laneway suite in the City of Toronto, you can have the development charges deferred and eventually forgiven. Why? Because we want more rental housing and we have arguably recognized that it’s important for project feasibility.
Should the same apply if you’re building 2 new homes, or perhaps 28 new homes? At what point should the “impacts” kick in and the fees be levied? And might there be an argument that adding many new homes on top of small 482 square meter parcels is actually an incredibly efficient way of using existing public infrastructure? I think so.
Congratulations to the team on a beautiful proposal! I’m looking forward to this being our neighbor.
