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.
Approximately 41% of the YTD population growth in Canada this year has been in Ontario. Here’s a slide from a recent presentation by Zonda Urban:
So there’s an argument to be made that demand is still outpacing new housing supply in most of our major markets:
Why then are new home sales continuing to slide? A reasonable answer would be that — by design — this new housing isn’t attainable to most:
The result seems to be a long-term structural shift toward more rental housing:
This is an unfortunate distinction:
Of all the world’s housing crises, Hong Kong’s may be the most formidable. The city of 7.3 million leads the world in housing prices and inequality, with 125,100 millionaires and 1.6 million people living in poverty. Home prices have rocketed by 187% over the last decade. In May, the number of public housing applicants hit 245,000, with an average wait time of 6.1 years — the highest in over two decades. According to lawmaker Scott Leung, a shortage of 30,000 units in the next five years means that the public housing queue will soon stretch to 6.5 years.
So let’s take a look at overall housing supply (source):
What this chart tells us is the following:
This is how Hong Kong builds, and it clearly isn’t enough to meet demand.
Okay, so maybe this isn’t an entirely definitive guide. But the intent is to make this post a kind of working post. As new ideas emerge (from my end or from your ends), I will endeavor to update it, so that maybe one day it will become a bit more definitive. I also think it’s important to keep it a little crazy. Because housing affordability is clearly a tough problem to solve, so unless we start thinking differently and acting boldly, we may not get there.
Here goes.
What is missing from this list? And/or what did I get wrong?
Last updated: July 25, 2022
I received an email from a reader over the weekend saying that my comments around rent control have been too critical, and that they are not doing proper justice to the challenges that renters face in today’s cities. I thought this was a fair comment and so I’d like to respond to it publicly on the blog.
But before I get into that, it’s worth saying that housing issues are incredibly complex. And I am certainly not professing to have all of the answers. In fact, part of the reason I write this blog is so that I can think critically about these topics and hear what other people have to say.
It is obvious that wages have not kept pace with home prices in many cities around the world. This is a problem. And so we can all agree that we need more economic opportunities, we need more housing, and we need more attainable housing. The question is how best to go about this.
Mechanisms like rent control and inclusionary zoning might seem like obvious solutions. Just cap rents and force developers to build affordable housing. Problem solved at no cost to anyone, right? It’s not that simple. Every intervention creates distortions in the market.
To give just one example, studies suggest that rent controls end up creating a misallocation of housing. Because if you are living in a rent controlled home and your rent is well below market, you are now heavily incentivized never to move. Even if you have an empty nest with 5 bedrooms, why would you?
Of course, there are other possible repercussions. Residential contracts are typically gross leases (though some utilities might be sub-metered and paid for by the tenant). This is in contrast to commercial leases where net leases are common and most, if not all, of the operating costs are passed through to the tenant.
Why this matters is that if your rents are capped but your utility costs, taxes, and other operating expenses are continuing to rise, you may run into a situation as a landlord where you can no longer afford to upkeep your building. And you’re certainly not going to invest in any new improvements if this is your situation.
Rent controls could also impact the supply of new housing by making it no longer feasible to build. This is similar to what we have seen with policies like inclusionary zoning. Just last month San Francisco went on the record saying that it’s going to rethink its inclusionary zoning policies because of a view that it is now choking off new housing supply.
And so herein lies one of our great housing challenges. We want more housing and we want more affordable housing. But depending on how we approach the latter, it could hurt the former, which ends up creating a viscous cycle.
Building new rental housing is very challenging in Toronto (and elsewhere). Typically the way the process goes for a developer is that you start by preparing a detailed development pro forma. This pro forma will then tell you that your new rental development is infeasible. And so you go back, convert it to a condominium development, and then it magically becomes feasible.
I am exaggerating, but only slightly. The point is that there are lots of developers out there who would love to build more rental housing — they just can’t make the math worth.
My goal with this post was to explain where I have been coming from with some of my past comments. I also used the opportunity to link to a number of my related posts. But I haven’t really put forward any possible solutions. I plan to do that in a follow-up post, and I think I’m going to call it “the definitive but crazy guide to creating more affordable housing.”
So if any of you have any crazy ideas, please send them over.
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’s new inclusionary zoning policy went to Planning and Housing Committee this week. Agenda item, here. The recommendations were approved, which means that the item will move onto City Council next month for final approval.
Here’s a summary of some what is being proposed (though keep in mind that I am not a planner and you should probably do your own due diligence if you’re looking to buy land and/or develop here):
If you’re interested, the full staff recommendation report can be found here and the draft OPA and zoning by-law can be found here and here.
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.
News has just dropped that architect Bjarke Ingels, Roni Bahar, and Nick Chim are launching a new “design living” company called Nabr. Their website says that it is “coming soon to Silicon Valley” and so presumably there will be tech involved and we should actually be calling it a startup.
The video embedded at the top of this post (link here) will tell you a little bit about it. But from what I can glean from their website, the focus is on using technology and modular construction to deliver housing that is more personal / adaptable, more sustainable, and more attainable. There is a note on their site about buying with only 1% down.
We have talked a lot on this blog about the antiquated and slow-moving nature of design, development, and construction. So what it absolutely clear is that there are many problems to be solved here. I am excited to see what the team brings forward.
Another day, another set of announcements about large companies and rich people moving to lower cost US states. Yesterday it was announced that Oracle will move its corporate headquarters from Silicon Valley to Austin, Texas. (If you remember, Elon Musk also recently announced that he had moved himself to Austin from California.) The company has said that the move puts Oracle in the best position to grow and to give its employees greater flexibility about where and how they work.
While these sorts of moves are making headlines right now, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not necessarily a new phenomenon. In fact, depending on how you look at it, you could argue that these headlines are a lagging indicator for trends that have been underway for some time. Below is a chart from New Geography showing the top 50 state-to-state moves last year. Number one is the move from California to Texas with 45,172 net movers. And number two is the move from New York to Florida with 38,512 net movers.
According to New Geography, California saw a net domestic migration loss of 912,000 people from 2010 to 2019. And the most popular receiving states are what you would expect: Florida (1,230,000 people) and Texas (1,146,000 people). A big part of this story obviously has to do with housing affordability and the search for an overall lower cost of living. As well, since companies are always in need of young and smart talent, it makes since for them to locate in places where young and smart people want to live.
But urbanists like Richard Florida have also pointed out at this relocation of companies could be a leading indicator for something else: the decline of innovation in America. Here, he argues that in the nascent stages of a new invention, there tends to be a tight clustering phenomenon. Think steel in Pittsburgh, cars in Detroit, and computing in Silicon Valley. However, as the industry matures, the tendency to centralize seems to decline and companies then start moving around.
I’m not yet convinced that this is what’s happening. Because there seems to be a pile on happening in specific cities like Austin (which, by the way, I hear is terrific). Even before this pandemic, there was a growing sense (from the outside, mind you) that the Bay Area had simply gotten too expensive, both for individuals and for companies. It would seem that when you greatly restrict the supply of new housing and make it unattainable for many, people go find housing somewhere else. Sometimes in other states.
Photo by Tomek Baginski on Unsplash
