Brandon Donnelly

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.

Subscribe

Search results for: “inclusionary zoning”

  • Who should pay for affordable housing?

    Deeply affordable housing is mostly infeasible to build.

    This is why you don’t see the market naturally building this kind of housing on its own. It, for the most part, doesn’t make any economic sense to do so. So this is also why the US has fabricated things like low-income housing tax credits. They are a way to make up the economic shortfall that exists with low-income rental housing and get the private sector building this kind of housing.

    We sometimes try to convince ourselves — or maybe it is a way of shirking responsibility — that there can be such a thing as no-cost affordable housing through things like inclusionary zoning. But I think we all know that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is ultimately going to need to pay. The big question, of course, is who should that be?

    By definition, we acknowledge that the people who will ultimately live in these affordable homes cannot afford to pay market rates. So by default, the subsidies will need come from somewhere else. But again, from where and from who? Should it be specific people who pay or should it be mostly everyone who pays?

    If we return to the Toronto building industry’s favorite topic right now — development charges — you’ll see that under the current rates, every new 2 bedroom or larger apartment that is constructed must pay $3,727 toward affordable housing. Under the proposed rates, this will increase to $12,545 for every new large apartment. It’s by far the largest proposed percentage increase (237%) and also one of the largest service items.

    This raises two interesting philosophical questions.

    One, should the buyers of new housing be responsible for contributing to affordable housing in this way? Because what we are in effect saying to these people is, “Hey, you can afford to buy a new market rate home, so we’re going to collect some additional money from you — $12,545 to be exact — so that we can try and help those that aren’t in the same position as you. We’re also going to mandate additional affordable homes within your building and we’d like you to subsidize those too.” This is one way to redistribute wealth.

    But if the goal is to try and create more broad-based affordability, an alternative approach might be, “Hey, you already own a home and it has gone up a lot in value, so we’re going to collect some additional money from you over time so that we can try and help those that aren’t in the same position as you.” This would be the property tax approach. It’s probably not perfect, but might it be a more fair and equitable way to redistribute wealth?

    The second interesting philosophical question has to do with whether this is consistent with the dogma that growth should pay for growth. The idea behind development charges (also known as impact fees in some parts of the world) is that they should pay for the cost of new development. This makes complete sense. When you build new housing you certainly need some additional stuff — everything from additional school capacity to emergency services.

    But the question here is whether the construction of new housing in and of itself creates a direct need for more affordable housing, and therefore should be charged for it. Asked in the opposite way, if you weren’t building this new housing, would you then no longer need this affordable housing, just like you no longer need that additional school capacity?

    This is definitely not the case. In fact, I would argue that the opposite is true. If you don’t build any new housing in a growing city, you actually exacerbate the problem of affordability. So here’s a provocative thought. Rather than a charge, should this affordable housing line item actually be a credit towards each new project given that it benefits affordability?

    While it may not make any economic sense to build affordable housing, I think that many of us would agree that it makes a lot of social sense to build affordable housing. We know that our cities are at their best when they are both diverse and inclusive. The problem is that we can’t agree on who should pay for it.

  • Toronto proposes at 49% increase to development charges

    The big news this week for Toronto city builders is that the city has put forward a proposal to substantially increase development charges. Here’s a tweet storm that I published earlier today on the topic, and here’s a summary of what the new fees might look like:

    To translate this into a specific example, let’s assume that you’re building a 300 unit apartment building with 180 one bedroom suites and 120 two bedroom suites.

    Under these proposed DC rates, this would translate into charges of about $9.6mm for the one bedroom suites and $9.8mm for the two bedroom suites, totaling over $19.4mm in DCs alone. But keep in mind that there would be other charges on top of this for parkland dedication, community benefits, and a bunch of other things.

    When our cost consultant ran the numbers back in 2019, the estimate was that about a quarter of the price of a new condominium in Toronto was going to government fees and taxes. But with the above increase and with the introduction of policies like inclusionary zoning, I am sure that the number is higher today.

    These are easy fees to hide. Most people don’t know they exist. And a lot of people don’t seem to like new development and new housing. Property taxes on the other hand are highly visible and highly sensitive. So that tax tends to be left alone, especially by comparison.

    But these increases are hugely impactful. It means that developers across the city will now need to start looking at increasing rents and prices in order to try and offset it. If they can’t, they won’t build. And if they can, it will mean that the housing that does ultimately get built will be that much more expensive.

  • Weekend link roundup — Ukraine and gas supply to Warren Buffet and Canadian housing supply

    I spent much of this morning reading about and listening to discussions about what’s happening in Ukraine and so, instead of a typical post this morning, I’m just going to share a mélange of links.

    • Monocle 24 Foreign Desk episode talking about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Speakers are Ukrainian MP Lesia Vasylenko, former NATO chief Richard Shirreff, Russian journalist Ekaterina Kotrikadze, and Russia expert Mark Galeotti. I found this helpful in better understanding some of the dynamics at play here and what might happen going forward — though, of course, who knows. All of this is both deeply sad and frustrating. [Link]
    • Discussion in Bloomberg Green about the feasibility of the EU shutting off Russian gas right now, as opposed to through a protracted transition. Currently, the EU satisfies about 20% of its total energy needs through gas and about 40% of it comes from Russia. [Link] Also, a chart showing Russian natural gas exports, by destination. [Link]
    • Warren Buffet published his widely read annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders this weekend. He likes to deliver news like this on a Saturday so that people have time to digest it before the markets reopen on Monday. The overall message was one that we have heard before: BH has a lot of cash (~$144 billion to be exact) and they’re not finding very many compelling opportunities in which to deploy it. [Link]
    • To add to the above, here is a longish Q&A session with Buffet’s partner, Charlie Munger. He continues to be worried about excess money in the system and high inflation. [Link]
    • Construction has been recently completed on a Mies van der Rohe design from 1952 that had been forgotten and buried in some archives. Originally commissioned to be a fraternity house at Indiana University, the building is now the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design. This is a supremely cool story, particularly for an architecture school. [Link]
    • Yet another simple example by Bobby Fijan on how highly restrictive zoning codes and design guidelines don’t always produce the end results that we might want. Different times and different contexts in this example. But it’s interesting to think about how best to promote design excellence in our cites. Is more creative market freedom the answer? [Link]
    • My friend Randy Gladman, who is senior vice-president of development advisory at Colliers here in Toronto, published an opinion piece in the Financial Post last week about the hidden costs of inclusionary zoning. It is consistent with the ad nauseam discussions that we have been having on this blog for the past few years, but it of course remains an important read. [Link]
    • Steve Pomeroy of Focus Consulting makes an argument in the Globe and Mail that elevated home prices in Canada isn’t primarily the result of a supply deficit. Using recent census data that allegedly shows that housing supply in Vancouver actually kept pace with demand (over how long of a period?), Pomeroy instead points to the other typical culprits: strong demand, low interest rates, unused homes owned by non-residents, and so on. This one likely deserves a dedicated post at some point. [Link]

    Ironically, the post turned out to be wordier than my usual ones.

  • Longer-term benefits of Airbnb for housing supply

    There is a commonly held view that short-term rentals (such as the ones you might find on platforms like Airbnb) are bad for housing affordability because they take long-term rentals out of the market and they help to drive up property values. And there’s evidence for this. A study published in Harvard Business Review found that home-sharing alone might be responsible for about 20% of the average annual rent increases across the US.

    Findings like these have encouraged municipalities around the world to put restrictions in place for STRs. But like most policy issues, there are nuances. And the thoughtful answers are rarely as obvious as they may initially seem. This has been part of my complaint around inclusionary zoning. It sounds good when politicians say it: let’s just get developers to build us free affordable housing. But again, there are nuances to consider.

    Short-term rentals are similar. A recent follow-up study that was again published in Harvard Business Review has actually uncovered some interesting longer-term benefits to STRs.

    Using residential permit data, Airbnb listings, and STR policies across the US, the team found that when you look over a longer time horizon, Airbnb listings actually tend to increase the supply of residential housing. On average, a 1% increase in Airbnb listings led to a 0.769% increase in permit applications. Supply is of course good for a whole host of reasons, one of which is boosting the local tax base.

    Conversely, they found that restricting STRs tended to reduce the supply of new housing and renovations. After new regulations were put in place affecting STRs, Airbnb listings fell on average by about 21% and residential permits fell by 10%.

    Restrictions also seem to have a direct impact on the construction of things like accessory dwelling units (laneway and garden suites for us here in Toronto). When analyzing data in and around the borders between jurisdictions in Los Angeles County, the researchers found that areas without STR regulations saw 17% more ADU permit applications compared to the areas that had restrictions.

    For the 15 US cities that the team studied, they conservatively estimated that STR restrictions reduced property values by about $2.8 billion and impacted tax revenues by about $40 million per year. Some cities, like Chicago, have also found success using STRs as an economic development strategy in distressed neighborhoods, which would further bolster the tax base.

    All of these findings suggest that a more nuanced approach to STR policies is probably merited.

    Photo by Andrea Davis on Unsplash

  • The future of parking is a lot less of it — at least here in Toronto

    I was having a conversation this week with a few friends in the industry about the future of parking. We were specifically talking about Toronto, but I would imagine that much of this holds true for many other cities around the world.

    Here in Toronto, it’s not uncommon to see new parking spaces in central locations selling for upwards of $200k. For those that are not in the industry and not seeing the work and immense costs that go into building parking, this often comes as a surprise.

    But as I have said many times before on the blog, parking is often a significant loss leader for new developments. Even at relatively high prices, most developers aren’t covering their costs. So developers naturally aren’t racing out to build more of it. They’re trying to build just what is absolutely necessary for the market.

    Given the strong incentives to build less parking, it’s no surprise that parking ratios continue to decline. But consider some of the other parking headwinds:

    • Parking minimums are (hopefully) set to be removed
    • Push toward watertight undergrounds across the city (higher costs)
    • Tipping fees for disposing of contaminated soil (higher costs)
    • Increasing development charges / levies (higher costs)
    • Introduction of inclusionary zoning (higher costs)
    • Inflationary construction cost environment (again, higher costs)

    There is a lag between changing cost structures and what the end consumer sees and feels. Junction House, for example, is fully tendered from a construction standpoint and so we are building with a kind of historic cost structure that would be impossible to replicate today. When the next project comes around, they’ll have higher costs and will have to price their homes accordingly.

    As rising costs and new policies (like the ones I mention above) begin to work their way through the system, I think it’s fairly obvious that parking ratios will continue to be one of the first things that gets looked at and ultimately chopped down. This will make parking even more scarce in the city and surely far more expensive.

    (Back in 2018, Hong Kong had the record for the most expensive parking spot in the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if it still holds this title.)

    But as I have argued before, I am of the opinion that building around the car is not the way to build big and well-functioning global cities. Many of us recognize that we need to focus on alternative forms of transport — everything from public transit to new micro-mobility solutions. And given where costs are going, I don’t think we’ll have much choice.

    Photo by Sven Mieke on Unsplash

  • No-cost affordable housing in Toronto

    It upsets me when I read things like this (click here if you can’t see the embedded tweet above). I think it creates a false sense of a free lunch and ignores all of the nuances and complexities associated with inclusionary zoning.

    IZ is an obligation to provide a certain number of affordable units in new housing developments. There’s a lot of detail and debate around where this should apply, how much needs to be provided, and at what degree of affordability.

    But at the end of the day, it’s important to keep in mind that at meaningful levels of affordability, these IZ homes are going to be built at steep losses. More info on the economic impacts of IZ can be found here.

    The simple math is that the costs to build these homes are going to be greater than the revenues that they bring in. Which is why developers aren’t out building affordable housing everywhere. There’s no margin.

    In order to build, somebody or something needs to provide a subsidy so that this revenue-expense shortfall can be made up. How this works its way through the market is where I have tried to focus the discussion when writing about IZ. There are complexities. Some lessons from Portland, here.

    But to just assume that these costs will get magically absorbed by housing developers, with no other knock-on effects or distortions to the market, is incorrect.

  • Affordable housing for all?

    Bloomberg CityLab has a new video out talking about how Vienna has seemingly solved the housing unaffordability problem that is impacting most global cities around the world. Each year Vienna builds about 14,000 new housing units and about half of this is supply is “affordable.” Already over 60% of Viennese live in an affordable home. The title of the video suggests that their approach is radical, but is that really the case?

    What was clear to me when I watched the video is that there are perhaps two key differences in terms of how Vienna approaches this problem. One, they quite simply care about delivering high-quality affordable housing to the middle class. They think it’s culturally important and they believe that architecture and design matters. Two, they are willing to invest in it, both up front and over time (maintenance).

    In the video, the former Vice Mayor of Vienna talks about how the City will go out and buy land (or use already owned land) and then make it available (sale or lease) at discounted rates so that it makes economic sense for non-profit housing developers. If the math still doesn’t work for the private sector, then there are other subsidies available.

    I’m certainly not an expert on Vienna’s approach to housing delivery. And I’m not suggesting it’s perfect. My knowledge base comes largely from one 13 minute episode by CityLab. But I think it’s notable that I didn’t pickup anything in the video about inclusionary zoning leading the way (which I have argued before tends to shift the burden to the remaining market rate housing units). Instead, they value it and they invest in it. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

    Image: CityLab

  • There is no such thing as a free lunch

    Inclusionary zoning has been on my mind this week and so I thought I would revisit some of my old posts on the topic. I wrote about it here, here, here, here, here, and probably in a bunch of other places that I am forgetting right now. A number of these posts go as far back as 2015-2016.

    As well-intended as inclusionary zoning may be, I have never been able to get my head around it. There are lots of cities with inclusionary zoning polices in place and what history generally tells us is that it tends to reduce overall housing supply and increase market rents/prices.

    This makes intuitive sense when you consider that inclusionary zoning is in effect a tax on new development. And one of the only things I remember from my economics classes is that it’s generally good practice to tax the things we want less of. You know, things like cigarettes and carbon.

    This is why I have also been a strong supporter of road pricing over the years on this blog. Traffic congestion is bad (demand also happens to be relatively inelastic). So tax it and redirect the funds toward transit.

    Housing supply, on the other hand, isn’t bad. It’s pretty good and fairly useful. So in my simple mind, I don’t know why we would want to apply a tax to it instead of figuring out way to simultaneously encourage and incent the supply of new affordable housing. Here’s one idea.

  • New condo sales totaled 5,385 units last quarter

    Urbanation released its Q1-2021 quarterly condo market update for the Greater Toronto Area at the end of last month. And there’s some good stuff in it. New condo sales totaled 5,385 units in the first quarter of this year, which is higher than the 10-year average of 4,924 units and only slightly below sales from a year ago (Q1-2020). By and large, the numbers are starting to feel a bit pre-pandemic-like.

    If you remember what happened back in the second quarter of last year, there was a quick shift in demand toward the suburbs and outskirts of Toronto. Part of this was driven by affordability. But I guess part of this was also driven by the fact that some people seemed to think that our cities had never before experienced a health crisis and were going to somehow die. Or perhaps it was because Zoom is so much fun (and not at all exhausting) and that this time was destined to be different. Either way, I never understood this.

    Fast forward a year and the core is not surprisingly coming back. The oldest part of the city (former City of Toronto) saw 2,886 new condo sales in the first quarter of this year. This is actually higher than sales in Q1-2020. New condo openings in downtown Toronto sold for an average price of $1,419 per square foot. And overall absorption was about 76% in the quarter, which is the highest it has been since 2017.

    Some of you may be looking at these numbers and thinking WTF. But when developers look at the costs in their pro forma, as well as what’s on the horizon — ahem, inclusionary zoning — it’s usually that same feeling. So it’s hard to imagine average prices and rents going anywhere but up.

  • Everything has a cost

    A new report was just published by Urbanation and the Federation of Rental-Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) arguing that the Greater Toronto Area is undersupplying rental housing to the tune of about 20,000 units per year. This number considers both purpose-built rental housing and condominiums that are purchased by investors and later rented out. (Shane Dingman also covered the report in this recent Globe and Mail article.)

    These findings probably won’t come as a surprise to a lot of you. It is pretty common for most big/growing cities to operate with a perpetual housing supply deficit. With all of the barriers to development, it’s often impossible to keep pace with demand. This naturally creates upward pressure on pricing. But the other factor that cannot be ignored is development costs. How much does it cost to actually deliver new supply?

    Here’s an excerpt from the report that speaks to this consideration:

    While the results of the infill development potential exercise are encouraging, the economics
    of intensifying these sites may be too difficult for owners to ultimately move them forward in many cases even with a zero land cost, as achievable rents outside of Central Toronto are
    often not high enough to offset development and operating costs.

    It’s also something that we’ve talked about many times before on the blog. Even with free land, there are going to be countless sites and neighborhoods where it does not make economic sense to build anything new: development costs > potential revenues. And so to build, somebody is going to have to pay. Either the costs need to be subsidized or the revenues needs to be topped up somehow. Otherwise, supply = 0.

    If you’re facing a deficit of 20,000 units per year, this seems like something you may want to consider. How might we increase supply? And how might we increase the supply of affordable housing? Many, including some of the folks interviewed in Shane’s Globe and Mail article, believe that inclusionary zoning is one such solution. Force new developments to deliver a certain percentage of affordable units (kind of like forcing restaurants to offer up 5-10% of their tables at a loss).

    But again, I think it’s important to remember that whenever costs exceed revenues, somebody is going to have to pay for that shortfall, otherwise supply = 0. Something has to give, whether that be reduced costs, greater density, or higher rents on the remaining market rate units. I think part of the allure of inclusionary zoning is that it creates the allusion of a free lunch. But here’s the thing: everything has a cost.