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

Tag: affordable housing

  • Let’s get serious about building more homes in Canada

    I live in a condominium. I find it extremely desirable. I don’t yearn to live anywhere else. And I think of it as my home. But there is of course truth to this Globe and Mail article:

    Canadians, by and large, continue to think of condos and apartments as housing, not homes. That’s hardly surprising given the way Canada builds them: small units in tall towers clustered in downtown cores or near busy transit hubs. They’re the one- and two-bedrooms young people rent in their 20s (and, increasingly, their 30s). The starter homes. The initial landing spot for newcomers. But they are not desirable homes for two large swaths of the population. Young families need multiple bedrooms and proximity to parks and schools. Retirees looking to downsize often say they want to remain in the same neighbourhood. A dearth of higher-density homes for these two groups has dire consequences for cities.

    The problem is twofold.

    Our land use policies are too restrictive, though that is slowing starting to change for the better. And it is simply not economically feasible to build larger, family-sized apartments at any sort of meaningful scale. This is not a developer unwillingness problem, it is a math problem.

    Toronto, for instance, would be far better off if we had European-scaled apartment buildings all across the city and a lot more family-friendly housing. I believe this to be true at least. But in order to achieve this, we need to get serious. This is not serious.

    We need to dramatically reduce development charges and other government fees. We need to get rid of the site plan control process for smaller buildings. We need to remove required amenity areas (the city is the amenity for small-scale neighborhood apartments). And the list goes on.

    So if anyone in government is reading this and is truly serious about building more affordable housing in this country, please give me a call. I will gladly come into your office and run you through a development pro forma so that you can see what it’s going to take. We can fix housing.

  • Call with a Paris developer

    I had a call with a developer in Paris earlier this week and it was interesting to hear him talk about the new home market over there. It sounded a lot like Toronto. Higher interest rates cooled demand. Individual investors largely disappeared. And now developers are having to rethink their strategies and floor plans (including suite sizes).

    But in his view, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It now means that you actually have to be a reasonably good developer in order to have a chance at succeeding. You have to design thoughtful floor plans and build great housing. It’s a return to fundamentals, and I would argue that the same thing is happening here in Toronto.

    My other noteworthy takeaway was around social housing. All new developments in the Île-de-France region are subject to inclusionary zoning. I believe the requirement is 30% of the suites. These suites are then purchased by social housing operators, and it is one of the ways that new supply is created in the market.

    We talk a lot about IZ on this blog, but what’s interesting about this approach is that it becomes a forward sale for the developer. Meaning, it helps to de-risk projects. Before doing anything, you know you’ve sold 30% of your inventory, and somehow the numbers all work. European social housing math is baffling to me.

    I am now wondering if this creates some kind of incentive to keep development costs in check. Because if social housing operators are expected to buy 30% of all new homes, then they too are going to want them to be as cost effective as possible. I’m speculating though; I don’t know that this is the case.

    If you’re a developer or real estate person in Paris, please get in touch. I’d love to learn more about your market and trade notes.

  • Burnaby backtracks on inclusionary zoning

    The City of Burnaby recently passed an amendment to its inclusionary rental requirements. It has now been removed from the southeast portion of the city, which, according to Burnaby Now, has one of the lowest median incomes in the city.

    Here’s an excerpt from the staff recommendation report that was approved in early October:

    The analysis explored the impacts of increasing the density of developments in the Edmonds Town Centre area to try and improve revenues. However, the results showed that at current values, additional density is not able to offset the costs of providing the non-market housing, and that the equity needed to pursue large developments became prohibitive. As such, it is recommended that inclusionary rental requirements apply city-wide, with a delayed effective date for the Southeast Burnaby CMHC rental zone (the “SE Burnaby CMHC Zone”), until such time that inclusionary rental requirements become financially viable.

    What’s noteworthy about this amendment is that it acknowledges the real costs associated with non-market housing and shows how important high market rents are to subsidizing them. There’s no such thing as no-cost affordable housing. In the end, somebody always has to pay.

  • Toronto announces nothing plan to create more rental homes

    Yesterday, the City of Toronto announced that it would be “unlocking” 7,000 new rental homes — including 1,400 deeply affordable homes — by doing two key things:

    • Waiving development charges on rentals
    • Providing a 15% reduction on property taxes

    And by their estimates, the value of these benefits would be roughly $58k per new rental home:

    Great news, right?

    But wait, there’s a catch. If you read the details, you’ll see that in order for a project to be approved under this program, there is also a requirement to deliver at least 20% of the homes as affordable rentals.

    So let’s look at what this could mean.

    Here is a chart comparing a market rental suite at $3,000 per month to a more affordable one at $1,500 per month:

    MarketAffordableVariance
    Face Rent$3,000 $1,500 ($1,500)
    Suite Size$600 600 0 
    PSF Rent$5.00 $2.50 ($3)
    Annual PSF Rent$60 $30 ($30)
    NOI Margin70%70%$0 
    Annual Net Rent$42 $21 ($21)
    Cap Rate4.50%4.50%$0 
    PSF Value$933 $467 ($467)
    Per Unit Impact($280,000)
    20% of Units($56,000)

    Both are assumed to be 600 square feet. In the case of the market suite, the per square foot (PSF) value is estimated at $933 psf, and the affordable suite is estimated at $467 psf. This represents a halving of the value (which makes sense because I halved the rents).

    On a per unit basis (again, we’re assuming 600 sf), this is a loss in value of about $280k. But since only 20% of the units would need to be “affordable”, I multiplied this number by 0.2. The result is a per unit loss of approximately $56k.

    What this means is that we’re basically doing a whole bunch of stuff to get right back to the same place. Like, hey, we’re not building enough rental housing and we’re certainly not building enough affordable housing — because the development margins are so dangerously thin — so here’s a credit of $58k per unit. But at the same time, here’s a bill for $56k per unit.

    What’s the point, besides making it sound like we’re doing something to create more housing? This program will do absolutely nothing to spur the creation of new rental housing.

  • Density is good

    Here is an interesting chart (source) showing housing starts in Canada, by type, between 2000 and 2023:

    As recent as 2000, single-family houses accounted for 61% of total starts and multi-family housing accounted for 39%. This flipped somewhere around the financial crisis and, last year in 2023, the percentages were 23% and 77%, respectively. This is a meaningful inversion which has helped our cities become more vibrant and more conducive to non-car modes of transport.

    But in this recent article about Canadian housing, Donald Wright more or less argues: so what? We’ve been densifying our cities for all these years, but it hasn’t helped our affordability problem. Supply must not be the answer to our housing crisis.

    I’m not exactly sure what he believes to be the solution, but I don’t think this problem is as simple as “we’ve built some housing, we made our cities denser, and yet housing is still expensive — more supply must not be the answer. Let’s move on.”

    Among many other things, it’s important to understand what kind of density we’ve been building. Because up until very recently, we’ve basically taken the position that single-family neighborhoods should never be touched, and that density should only go in very specific areas — and only after a lengthy and expensive rezoning process has been completed.

    We’ve designed new housing to be expensive.

    But attitudes are changing all across North America. We are now starting to do two very important things: (1) we are opening up more of our cities to intensification and (2) we are now allowing more multi-family housing on an as-of-right basis. Meaning, no lengthy rezoning exercises and no risk of community opposition.

    These are two fundamental changes that should alter the kind of density that gets built. And in my view, it’s going to be a positive thing for Canadian cities.

  • Remember unfunded inclusionary zoning?

    Over the weekend, we spoke about how the “GTA condo market is in a state of economic lockdown.” What this generally means is that the math isn’t making sense to build new condominiums. And so the market is necessarily pausing.

    We spoke about what this will likely mean for supply in the coming years, but I think it’s also interesting to talk about this in the context of something else: unfunded inclusionary zoning.

    As a reminder, inclusionary zoning is, in its most basic form, a requirement to build a certain amount of affordable housing as part of new housing developments. And what I mean by “unfunded” is that there are no subsidies or other incentives being provided to the project.

    This means that the cost of providing this housing — and there is an additional cost — needs to be shouldered by the project, which ultimately means the market-rate units need to pay for it.

    Which is why if you look at most policy studies, you’ll often find recognition that, because of this economic reality, IZ tends to work better in areas where home prices/rents are higher. And again, that’s because the market-rate homes need to shoulder the cost.

    We have questioned, many times, on this blog, whether this is the right approach to delivering affordable housing, but I think this question becomes even more critical in our current market environment.

    If the entire market is, for the most part, in a state of economic lockdown, should we really be layering on additional costs and making it broadly more difficult to build any sort of new housing? It seems counterintuitive.

    For more on this topic, check out this recent Sightline article by Dan Bertolet.

  • Toronto approves new Rental Housing Supply Program

    This past week, Toronto City Council approved the launch of a new affordable housing initiative called the Rental Housing Supply Program. Here’s the agenda item if you’d like to dive into the details and read some of the supporting reports. There are a number of components to the program, and one of them is a subsidy that will be administered by way of a forgivable interest-free loan:

    Subject to the adoption of the Rental Housing Supply Program, the City will continue to support RGI and affordable rental homes through the allocation of up to $260,000 per eligible affordable rental and RGI home. This is the maximum allowable funding allocation under the Rental Housing Supply Program. Actual funding per project will be determined based on the evaluation of applications on a site-by-site basis, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer, and based on project parameters and additional sources of funding that can be leveraged to support the project’s financial viability. These funds will be provided as interest free forgivable loans to eligible and approved projects and will be tied to milestones and requirements in agreements with housing providers.

    Total funding for the program is $351 million. And the intent is that these funds will be distributed in the near term to 18 affordable housing projects in the city, all of which are expected to start construction sometime between now and the end of 2025. In total, this is anticipated to create about 6,000 new affordable rental homes. That’s a good thing.

    Now, I don’t know anything about these projects. I don’t know if $260k is the right figure. And I don’t know if a forgivable interest-free loan is the exact right mechanism to deliver these funds. But what the program does do is recognize this: Deeply affordable housing cannot be built without some form of subsidy.

    Developers are often criticized for only building expensive housing. But the reality is that developers are, for the most part, takers of market pricing. In other words, we can’t just decide to build for less. We can reduce build and finish quality to get costs down, but at a certain point, the cost to build is the cost to build.

    And if that cost to build isn’t what the market would view as affordable, then you’re not going to get there without a subsidy. No developer is going to build if their expected revenues are less than their costs. Directionally, that’s what this new program appears to recognize.

  • Development charge litmus test

    Development charges are a topic that is near and dear to this blog.

    In theory, development charges are supposed to be “growth paying for growth.” In other words, they are intended to pay for the incremental services and infrastructure required strictly because of new development. This, of course, sounds right. More people will equal more demand on city services.

    However, development charges also increase the cost of new homes and there is a growing concern that development charges now pay for more than they should. Meaning, they have become a “housing tax”, which is more or less the opposite of what you want if you think there’s a shortage of new homes.

    Frances Bula recently wrote about this in the Globe and Mail.

    Part of the challenge, I think, is that city budgets are complicated. As far as I know, it’s largely impossible for the average person to try and figure out which municipal costs are associated with growth and which are associated with ongoing operations (i.e. they should be paid for through things like property taxes).

    That said, I think this current market environment could create a bit of a litmus test for development charges. As most of you know, new home sales in Toronto have fallen to levels not seen since the global financial crisis and the early 90s.

    This means that construction activity has now also fallen and that, in turn, fewer developers are paying development charges. I haven’t seen the exact numbers, but intuitively the drop in development charges paid should be precipitous.

    Now, if these charges are strictly paying for growth, then in theory, cities should be completely agnostic to this decline. Sure, they’re collecting less revenue, but they also don’t have the new growth. Any growth that is still in the pipeline (i.e. under construction) would have already paid for their impacts.

    However, if this is not the case, and municipal budgets start getting negatively impacted by this drop in development charge revenue, then it suggests that one of two things could be going on.

    Either development charges aren’t enough to cover the true cost of growth and the whole thing is a bit of a Ponzi scheme. That is, we need a constant flow of new developments to pay for the shortfalls of the last. Or, we’re overtaxing new homebuyers for the benefit of incumbent ratepayers.

    I’m sure it’s more complicated than I’m making it seem right now. But this is the crux of this debate: Are we equitably levying development charges on new homes? This current market could offer a clue. If cities start running out of money, it might suggest the answer is no.

  • Please sire, may I give you free land?

    This is an aerial photo of the construction site at One Delisle:

    Currently, we are on hold and waiting to pour a number of columns on the ground floor because the city has not yet issued our above-grade building permit. And the reason the city has not issued our above-grade building permit is because we have not yet conveyed our parkland dedication land to the city. Frustratingly though, we have been ready to convey this land for over a year! We simply need the city to allow us to give them this free land. To date, we have meticulously documented at least 3-pages of follow-ups and back-and-forth emails as we try our best to do this.

    I’ve been doing this long enough that this isn’t surprising or unusual. But it remains deeply maddening. Younger people on the team can’t believe that this is par for the course. On top of this, the city continues to charge interest on the fees that are payable upon issuance of the first above-grade building permit. The result is an insane dynamic where the city can delay things as long as it wants and then charge us, and all other developers, interest on its own delays! I mean, is it any wonder that housing keeps getting more expensive in this city?

    During the last mayoral election, some candidates were quick to promise that, if elected, the city itself would start building affordable housing. This, I’m sure, sounded good to most. Toronto needs more affordable homes. But for all of us involved in the building of buildings, it was frankly impossible to imagine. If the city takes this long to accept free land from developers, how could it possibly build anything?

  • Housing follows money

    One argument that you might be able to make is that home prices follow urban density. New York City, for example, is dense. And homes in New York City tend to be more expensive than those in, oh I don’t know, rural Canada. So with this, you might conclude that development and density are bad — it makes housing more expensive. But then there’s places like San Jose, California. It’s not very dense, and yet it has some of if not the most expensive housing in the US.

    Well, it turns out that housing density and median housing values don’t actually exhibit a particularly strong correlation. A better and much stronger relationship can be found in what Kasey Klimes explains, here, in this excellent post, which is that home prices more accurately follow incomes. In other words, the more high paying jobs that exist in a market, the more likely that housing will be expensive.

    Here is what that looks like for US metros over 1 million people:

    The above chart compares median home value to aggregate income per unit of housing. And here, Kasey discovers an r-value of 0.9, which suggests that “over 81% of median home values in large metros can be attributed to aggregate income per unit of housing.” This explains why San Jose, and San Francisco, are such outliers. They have very high incomes for every unit of available housing, despite the former being not all that dense.

    Okay, so now that we know this, how do we make housing more affordable? One option is to just make people poorer. If you reduce incomes per unit of housing, then home prices will, almost certainly, go down. And this is why poorer cities tend to have more affordable housing. But this is obviously suboptimal. The better option is to keep people wealthy and simply increase the denominator in “aggregate income per unit of housing.”

    Meaning: build more housing!

    Chart: Kasey Klimes