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.
Earlier today, the Conservative Party of Canada made the following housing policy announcement. If elected this fall, they would (copied verbatim from here):
Fix the mortgage stress test to ensure that first-time homebuyers aren’t unnecessarily prevented from accessing mortgages and work with OFSI to remove the stress test from mortgage renewals to give homeowners more options.
Increase amortization periods on insured mortgages to 30 years for first-time homebuyers to lower monthly payments.
Launch an inquiry into money laundering in the real estate sector and work with our industry partners to root out corrupt practices that inflate housing prices.
Make surplus federal real estate available for development to increase the supply of housing.
There aren’t a lot of details here, but Andrew Scheer did say that his party would eliminate the financing “stress test” for all mortgage renewals. Currently, you’re only exempt if you renew with your existing lender.
As Rob Carrick points out, this is a pretty sensible move. (Though he doesn’t agree with “fixing” the stress test.) The current situation gives the incumbent lender almost monopolistic power if the borrower can’t meet the stress test and is unable to shop around for a better rate.
At the same time, we know that the price of a highly levered asset tends to correlate with financing ability. So depending on what serves you better, you may be either concerned or delighted that this increased buying power could spur further housing consumption/appreciation.
From 1899 to 1902, the north side of 42nd Street, between 7th Avenue and Broadway in Manhattan, was occupied by the Pabst Hotel. At the time, this neighborhood was called Longacre Square.
Owned by the Pabst Brewing Company of Milwaukee, the building was part of a growing network of hotels and restaurants that the company used to promote its beer. Note the cool rooftop sign.
The portico you see in the above picture was highly controversial. I guess some things never change. City officials were criticized for allowing such a structure to encroach over a public right-of-way. Curiously, the Times was one of its biggest critics. A judge ultimately ordered for it to be removed in 1901.
The building also came down not long after. The introduction of New York City’s first subway — operated by the private Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) Company — began to spur new investment in the area. The first IRT line ran right through Longacre Square.
Adolph S. Ochs was the owner of the The New York Times during this period and he believed that the new subway line would increase foot traffic in the area. Betting on transit is clearly not a new phenomenon. So in January 1905, the newspaper moved into a new headquarters on the site of the former Pabst Hotel; a building that it developed for itself.
Today this building is known as One Times Square. Here is a photo of it under construction in 1903:
And here is a photo of the completed building in 1919 (at this point, it was no longer occupied by the paper):
At the time of its completion, it was one of the tallest buildings in New York City. And eventually, perhaps as a result of some encouragement on the part of Ochs, Longacre Square was renamed to commemorate this new building and the paper. It became known as Times Square.
By 1913, the Times had outgrown the building and would move down the street. But not before it would introduce a now famous New Year’s Eve celebration in the Square. The Times would continue to own the building up until 1961.
The area continued to evolve into an important theater district and transit hub. Everything connected through Times Square. Sadly, the Great Depression was not kind to the area and, either because of it or alongside it, Times Square declined into an area of vice filled with everything from burlesque shows to prostitution. This would come to define the area for almost the balance of the 20th century.
It would take many attempts starting in the 1980s to try and redirect Times Square’s now entrenched reputation. In 1982, the Department of City Planning created the Special Midtown Zoning District, which attempted to attract developers with tax breaks and other subsidies. It didn’t really work.
The City eventually looked to eminent domain to try and tidy up the area. But property owners — many of whom owned the adult businesses in the district — objected via a group known as the Coalition for Free Expression.
It would take a few other mayors, many legal battles, and interim ordinances such as the 60/40 rule — which allowed adult businesses to continue operating as long as no more than 40% of their floor area were allocated to sex — before things would really change.
Today, or at least as of 2015-2016, Times Square represents 15% of New York City’s total economic output. And it does this via 0.1% of the city’s total land area and 7% of its total employment.
Real estate in the district is estimated to be worth over $7 billion, with the Square generating about $2.5 billion in municipal tax revenue and about $2.3 billion in state revenue. A lot has changed in more than a century. But perhaps most importantly, the portico came down.
Joshua Levine’s recent (WSJ Magazine) piece on John Pawson, — the architect who “elevated nothingness to an art” — is a good read.
It’s mostly about the country retreat that he recently completed for himself and his wife in the English countryside, but there’s also lots about his minimalist architecture, his career, his work with hotelier/developer Ian Schrager, and his passion for photography.
I like this bit about architectural simplicity. The great irony of minimalism, and the reason why brands such as Calvin Klein and Jil Sander began working with John Pawson to leverage his aesthetic, is that it’s often more difficult to do less. Getting the details right costs money. Hence this great line from the New Yorker:
As the New Yorker cartoon put it, “Only the rich can afford this much nothing.” Don’t expect a rebuttal from Pawson. “It is big, and it is expensive, you know. It’s sophisticated architectural simplicity. This isn’t a religious thing, and it isn’t as simple as you can go. You can go a lot simpler than this.”
I also like what the following says about labels and what it means to be defined as something:
Slowing down for Pawson isn’t all that slow. He takes photos constantly and has always used the camera as his third eye. In 2017, Phaidon published Spectrum, a book of his photos, many of them first posted on his Instagram (“I said, ‘Well, I’m not a photographer,’ and they said, ‘You are a photographer,’ so now I’m a photographer”).
Click here for the rest of the article from WSJ Magazine. And if you aren’t familiar with John Pawson, here is his minimal website.
This recent study used geotagged tweets to measure social connectedness within American cities. There are two measures: (1) concentrated mobility and (2) equitable mobility. The first measures the extent to which social connections (geotagged tweets) are concentrated in a set of places within the city. And the second looks at the degree in which people move between neighborhoods in roughly similar proportions. These measures are the y-axis and the x-axis, respectively, in this graph:
So how do you read this chart?
Well if you look at New York, you’ll see that it is relatively high in concentrated mobility, but the lowest in terms of equitable mobility. This means that social connections are highly concentrated and that there’s low connectedness to other neighborhoods within the city. Miami, on the other hand, is the opposite. It’s also an outlier. Few hubs. But its social connections appear to cross neighborhoods and spread across the city.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the study found that the size of a city seems to have the biggest impact on social connectedness. Which makes sense — it becomes harder to get around and so people start to localize. I am reminded of this whenever my friends in Los Angeles tell me they never go to the beach because it’s simply too difficult and too time consuming to get across the city.
This also became clear to me after I started playing around with the Moves App back in 2015. The app no longer exists, but it was an activity tracker that allowed you to map where you, well, moved. And the more time you spent in one place, the more concentrated the activity would become. They depicted this through larger and larger circles. Example maps, here. My maps revealed that I need to branch out into different neighborhoods more often.
Ottawa, Ontario and Gatineau, Quebec are border cities. They exist on either sides of the Ottawa River. And yet, 2017 data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation revealed that there’s about a $450 per month rent spread on the average two-bedroom apartment in these two cities. The average rent on the Ontario side was $1,232 per month; whereas the average rent on the Quebec side was $782 per month.
Now, Ottawa is bigger. The city has a population of about 934,243 (2016); whereas Gatineau is about 276,245 (2016). Ottawa is also the nation’s capital, and so the center of gravity is firmly toward the former. But the border is also very porous. Google Maps is telling me that you can walk from downtown Ottawa to downtown Hull (Gatineau) in 30 minutes. So why then is there such a rent disparity?
Is there a language barrier? Is it because income taxes are higher in Quebec? Or is it something else? Interesting.
There’s a stretch of restaurants and bars on the south side of King Street, west of John Street, here in Toronto, that I generally try and avoid. I won’t name names, but if you’re from Toronto, you know what I’m talking about. With all due respect to the business owners, I think of this stretch as tourist row. All cities have them. Usually the identifying marker is a human on the street with a menu trying to entice you to come inside and eat. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I can appreciate good street hustle.
But whenever I’m traveling and trying to find a place to eat, I’ll often think to myself, “Oh man, is this the (insert city name here) equivalent of tourist row? I see people on the street with menus in their hands. Could be.” This is one of the reasons why I like Time Out’s recent “definitive list of the planet’s cultural and culinary hotspots.” They surveyed over 27,000 city dwellers in order to figure out where locals actually want to hang out. The result is the 50 coolest neighborhoods in the world.
I am somewhat embarrassed to say that, I think, I’ve only been to 6 of them. I have work to do. But Toronto does make the list — once — and it is none other than the Junction. Their recommendations, here. However, one thing they did miss was the Union Pearson Express. That is the way to get to the Junction from Union Station and it is, clearly, still under the radar for most. The number one spot on their list goes to Arroios in Lisbon, which is actually beside where I stayed when I was there this summer. Damn that city is cool.
A colleague of mine sent me this Bloomberg article today and said, “Here’s an article about things you already know.” The article cites a recent report by Altus Group that compared government-related fees on new housing across Canada and the U.S. What they discovered will not surprise any of you who are in the industry: Toronto has some of the highest government-imposed charges on new homes.
For new condo apartments, the report found that government charges can add up to as much as C$124,582 per unit. That’s about 50% higher than the average unit in the U.S. and about 30% higher than the average unit in Canada (see above chart for the list of cities). While all of us in the industry can appreciate this, I don’t think most homeowners and tenants understand this. Hopefully they’re reading this post.
This week, Matthew Yglesias of Vox makes the case for raising kids in the city. Spoiler: Driving sucks. Cities have lots to do. And parks can be better than lawns. However, he also talks about why this proposition is becoming increasingly difficult for many families. Here are a couple of excerpts:
Now the father of a 4-year-old son, I live in Washington, DC, a city that is, mercifully, marginally more affordable than New York, and I wouldn’t want to raise a family any place other than the city.
But unfortunately, families are disappearing from American cities even as city living in general has become fashionable again for those who can afford it.
Children cost money. And they take up space. And urban space has become much more expensive — repelling growing families. This suits the proclivities of smug suburbanites just fine, but as someone who grew up in a big city in the 1980s and 1990s when city living was both less fashionable and more affordable, it seems like a tragedy to me.
I didn’t grow up in the city. Though, I spent time in apartments and other higher density housing. And I don’t have kids. But I find this topic interesting. It’s also an important one. I don’t believe that the childless city is a good thing.
Rachelle Younglai and Chen Wang’s recent piece in the Globe and Mail on suburban household debt (in Canada) has a number of interesting stats. Here are some of them:
Looking at debt service ratios across the country, the most financially stressed neighborhoods in Canada are almost exclusively in the suburbs. (Map of the Greater Toronto Area shown at the top of this post. Data from Environics Analytics.)
34 of the top 100 most financially strained neighborhoods in Canada are located in Brampton, Ontario.
Brampton has grown at 2x the rate of Toronto over the last decade.
43% of Brampton’s housing was built between 2001 and 2016.
80% of homeowners in Brampton have a mortgage compared to 63% across the Toronto region as a whole.
80% of Brampton’s property tax revenue comes from residential property (not surprising). In comparison, 47% of Toronto’s property tax revenue comes from commercial properties.
About 2/3 of Brampton’s work force leaves the city for their job. This makes sense given the above point.
The other thing the article talks about is the increase in the average household size in many suburban communities as a result of people renting out parts of their house.
One Brampton gentleman is quoted as saying that he rents his basement out to 3 or 4 students and his upstairs bedrooms to two truckers. This translates into typically 6 vehicles parked in his driveway.
Assuming this is the trend, I wonder how much of this additional income is being reported to CRA. Because if it’s not, then it could be throwing of these debt ratios and making the financial situation look more dire than it is.
In any event, I think this speaks to, among other things, the role that many suburban communities now serve for new immigrants coming to Canada. They are doing what they can to try and get ahead.
It’s also worth noting that if you look at the above map of the Greater Toronto Area, the lowest “debt spots” are in fact where homes tend to be the most expensive — the core.
Developing a building can often feel like you’re trying to solve a rubik’s cube. Among other things, you have to manage a myriad of different stakeholders, all of which — naturally — operate in their own self-interest. There’s the city, community, politicians, various agencies, consultants, tenants, purchasers, lenders, investors, the market at large (of which you really have no control of), and many others. Oftentimes you even have stakeholders whose interests are mutually exclusive. Indeed, the things that they want can sometimes be at odds with each other. Your job is to figure out a solution that satisfies as many of these interests as possible.
To give you an example, let’s say that you’ve been asked to introduce a stepback into your building in order to break up the elevation. From an urban design standpoint, this may make perfect sense. Hello, datum line. But now your construction costs just went up. You have to transfer your mechanical lines, insulate the roof, introduce new bulkheads, and, for the purposes of this example, let’s say you now need to introduce a structural transfer. This is big cost item that you hadn’t accounted for. And because you just reduced the height of the building to satisfy another stakeholder, you don’t have the excess clear height to accommodate the additional depth required by this new structural element. There is, of course, always a solution. But usually something will need to give.
At the same time, this raises some interesting philosophical questions. What’s more important in this example? The urban design move or keeping construction costs low so that the building can be delivered more affordably? The cynics will argue that this is a moot point because developers will always profit maximize. But I would encourage you to check out some of my past posts, such as “Cost-plus pricing” and “The impact of inclusionary zoning on development feasibility.” This problem solving dynamic is one of the things that makes development so challenging. But it is also one of the things that makes it incredibly rewarding.
