Tag: condo development

• Toward larger condo units

  

  One of the things that I’ve been following over the years (and writing about a lot on this blog) is average condo/apartment sizes, specifically in Toronto. I’m interested in this topic because I think it tells you a lot about what’s going on in the market and who is buying/renting.

  Developers are often criticized here for building tiny “shoebox condos.” It wouldn’t be unusual to see a building with an average unit size somewhere in the range of 600-700 square feet.

  But it’s important to keep in mind that the pull toward smaller units is largely because of one important reason: affordability. All things being equal, I’m sure that most people would gladly take an expansive 2,000 sf apartment. But how many people can actually afford a place that large? And for those who can afford it, many seem to opt for ground-related housing instead. So for the most part, the market has said: not many.

  But I’ve suspected for awhile that it was only a matter of time before we saw unit sizes start to creep upward. And indeed today there seems to be a trend toward larger units. I can’t tell you the exact percentage increase for average unit sizes across the city, but you don’t have to look very hard to find a proposed project with average unit sizes in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 sf. I spent this morning looking many of them up and going through their data sheets. If any of you have a larger sample size, please share it in the comment section below.

  To me this feels like a maturation of the market. More of us are deciding to move up, instead of out, which is absolutely what we need to do. Affordability, perhaps more than ever, is still a concern. But the confluence of a couple of factors seem to be expanding the multi-family market in this direction.

  One, empty nesters are starting to cash out of their large houses and they still want/need space. Two, the price of low-rise housing has increased so dramatically that it’s now out of reach for many and/or it no longer feels cost competitive on a per square foot basis. Three, Toronto’s status as a global city continues to increase and this is making it more of a magnet for foreign capital. And four, central and transit-adjacent housing is incredibly desirable for a large segment of the population. Horrible traffic is probably helping this one.

  If there’s any truth to my logic, then I wonder if we won’t see a bit of a bifurcation in the market, if we aren’t already. On the one end, there will still be the pull to shrink unit sizes and maximize affordability. See micro-units. But on the other end, there will be a product segment that now acts as a substitute for low-rise housing.

  I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: I think more families in condos and apartments would be a positive thing for the city.

  2017.06.16

• 5 decades of condo development in Toronto

  Jeff Gray and John Sopinski just published a terrific set of maps in the Globe and Mail outlining 5 decades of condo growth in Toronto.

  Ontario first introduced the Condominium Act in 1968. The first condo project was supposedly built by Bert Winberg – founder of Rockport Group – between 1968-1969. He saw what developers were doing in California and Florida and he brought it to Toronto.

  Since then, here is what condo supply has looked like across the Greater Toronto Area:

  • 1970s – 11,697 units
  • 1980s – 30,881 units
  • 1990s – 49,503 units
  • 2000s – 103,683 units
  • 2010s – 109,497 units (up to September 2016)

  And here’s the map for the 2010s:

  

  We are now a condo city. For the full set of maps, click through here.

  2017.04.28

• Thickets of haphazardly planned condo towers

  I couldn’t sleep last night, so I got up and pulled out an old issue of Monocle magazine from my nightstand. I then stumbled upon the following article by Taras Grescoe.

  

  What really stood out for me was this line:

  “Thickets of haphazardly planned condo towers, compacted amid neighbourhoods of single-family houses, have led to congestion nightmares in Toronto and notoriously out-of-hand housing costs in Vancouver.”

  It bothered me for a few reasons:

  – The frame of reference is the single-family house. It perpetuates the cultural bias that what matters most in cities, like Toronto and Vancouver, is low-rise housing.

  – I don’t get the “haphazardly planned” comment. New tower development has been heavily concentrated in the downtown core, growth centers, along the Yonge subway corridor, and so on. Their built form is also significantly influenced by their relationship to these low-rise “Neighbourhoods.”

  – I believe that building up, as opposed to out, is the way to address congestion nightmares. Though I will concede that our ability to plan and execute on transit in this city is positively deplorable. 

  – How did thickets of condos create an affordability problem in Vancouver? Many factors at play in this city, including a powerful geographic supply constraint.

  Those are just a few of my thoughts from early this morning. What are yours?

  2017.04.10

• What is this a building for ants?

  One of the things you’ll often hear people deride at cocktail parties is the trend toward smaller urban dwellings. They get called “shoeboxes” and “cubby holes in the sky.” So let’s unpack that a bit today and try and better understand the economics behind it all.

  When a new building is being developed, pretty much everything gets normalized to a per square foot (or square meter) number. 

  This is important because saying that building X cost $50 million to build and building Y cost $100 million to build doesn’t tell you much if the buildings are completely different. 

  However, saying that building X cost $500 per square foot to build and building Y cost $475 per square foot to build, tells you that building Y, despite being more expensive in absolute terms, was actually cheaper and/or more efficient.

  The same is true on the revenue side. And typically, developers are looking (struggling) to meet a certain per square foot number in order to make the project financially feasible. 

  For instance, let’s say you’re building a 100,000 sf condo building. Once you subtract the non revenue generating spaces, you might determine that you need 85,000 sf x $600 per square foot in revenue in order to make the project feasible.

  But there’s a back and forth game that needs to be played here. You have to ask yourself: for the product that I’m hoping to build, does $600 psf translate into something that people can actually afford?

  You might think: everyone keeps telling me at cocktail parties that condos in this city are too small. So I’m going to build a bunch of 1,800 sf, 3 bedroom condos. Based on the above, these homes would be priced at around $1.08 million (1,800 sf x $600 psf). Your on-site signage would read: “Condos coming soon. From the low $1 millions.”

  But wait a minute, how many families can afford a condo north of $1 million? Some could, but definitely not the majority. So then you determine through rigorous market analysis that $600,000 would be a better number. That is something that is within reach of more families.

  But then you look at the math and realize that if you build that same 1,800 sf home, your per square foot revenue number now drops to $333 psf ($600,000 / 1,800 sf). 

  Given that you bought the land for $100 psf buildable (market price in the area) and that your construction costs alone are going to be $250 psf, you realize that you’re now underwater ($100 + $250 psf > $333 psf) without even adding in any soft costs (consultant fees, city fees, and so on). If you showed this to your investors on the project, they would throw you out of the room.

  So instead of building that 3 bedroom condo at 1,800 sf, you say to yourself: what if I made it 1,000 sf? You’re confident that your architect could lay out a terrific condo at that size and it now magically gets your per square foot revenue number back up to $600 psf. 

  This solves two problems: it returns the project to positive feasibility and it keeps the total sale price within reach of more people. It promotes greater affordability. So you go ahead and do it. Boom – shrinking urban dwelling.

  All of this is not to say that this is fair or unfair, good or bad. It is simply to say that this is the way it often is.

  2016.04.24

• Should condo reserve fund balances be made publicly available?

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  I’ve been thinking a lot lately about condominium governance and how things might be improved.

  If you own a condominium, you pay a monthly maintenance fee. Let’s say, for example, you own a 833 square foot condo and your maintenance fee is $500 per month. That works out to be $0.60 per square foot.

  For a lot of people, this fee probably feels like a bit of a black hole. The money goes out every month and that’s the end of it.

  But as I explained here, a portion of that fee goes into the condo’s reserve fund to cover future capital expenditures. This is basically an investment you are making for the future benefit of the building.

  As an example, if you’re paying $500 per month, somewhere around 25% could be going towards your condo corporation’s reserve fund. That’s $125 per month. $1,500 per year. $7,500 over a 5 year period. And $15,000 over a 10 year period.

  Now this is an investment that you’re obliged to make, but one that you might not be around to directly benefit from if you decide to sell before capital expenditures are made using the money you’ve invested.

  Of course, if you’re a savvy buyer, you’re going to scrutinize the reserve fund and the corporation’s overall financials before you buy into a building. And sometimes the unit valuations do get deeply depressed by out of control maintenance fees and/or special assessments. So you could maybe argue (as an owner) that your reserve fund investment ends up getting recaptured in an eventual sale.

  But what I wonder is to what extent a properly funded reserve gets accurately reflected in the valuation of the individual units. I suspect not that well. And as far as I know, there isn’t great data on this metric. (If you know of anything, please share it in the comments.)

  It’s certainly important information to have and consider. Again, when you buy a condo unit you’re not only buying the unit itself, you’re also buying the future investments (and liabilities) that others have left before you.

  So what I really want to know: Why aren’t reserve fund balances and building studies made publicly available? This is not easy information to get today.

  But imagine what would happen if the market had full transparency. Imagine if you could see a map of every condo building in your city and sort by age and reserve fund balance. In theory, unit pricing would become more accurate. But even more than that, there would be significant opportunities for collective intelligence.

  Now all of a sudden buildings would be able to benchmark themselves against other buildings to see if their reserve fund is sufficient, as well as learn from other buildings with respect to their history of capital expenditures. It would also hold the building’s management more accountable and allow owners to easily see if the contracts in place are competitive with the overall market.

  I know that a lot of people get nervous when it comes to sharing information like this. I mean, what would happen if your building is underfunded relative to its peers? Would that pull down property values? It certainly could. But if you’re underfunded and you get stuck with a special assessment in 5 years, then your property values are going to drop regardless.

  So I would love to see a lot more condo information made available to the public for free. In my view the benefits outweigh the potential negatives, particularly if this were to be done at scale. Condo corporations are also non-profit entities, so it’s not as if their balance sheets and income statements are filled with sensitive trade secrets.

  But what do you think? Would you feel comfortable if your condo’s reserve fund balance was made available online to the public? Do you even know off the top of your head what the balance is for your own building? I would be curious to know.

  2015.10.29

• We are all selfish bastards

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  We are all selfish bastards when it comes to sharing road space and public space.

  When we drive, we complain about pedestrians jumping out in front of us, crazy cyclists who get in our way, and under-utilized bike lanes that are taking away valuable driving space and creating traffic jams.

  When we take surface transit (such as buses and streetcars), we want all the cars out of the way so that we can move more efficiently. And we complain about drivers who don’t stop to let us off and on when the streetcar doors open. (Toronto specific reference.)

  When we cycle, we complain about cars parked in the bike lanes, people who don’t look before changing lanes or opening their car doors, and drivers who honk at you because they just want you off the road and onto the sidewalk.

  And when we walk, we complain about cyclists who ride on the sidewalk (they should be on the road!), cars that don’t stop to let us go, and slow walking groups who linearly block the entire sidewalk so you can’t pass.

  We are never happy. And we automatically assume that we could do it better. (I know I’m guilty of this.)

  But here are a few things to consider the next time you’re flipping the bird to someone on the streets. Here are a few things that we do know about urban mobility.

  There is an unprecedented number of condominiums in the development pipeline right now in Toronto. For argument’s sake, let’s assume 75,000 condominium suites – many of which will be built in central areas of the city.

  At a parking ratio of 0.6 stalls per unit, which isn’t an unreasonable assumption today, that’s 45,000 new parking spots and potentially 45,000 new cars in the city. 

  If you think that 45,000 new cars will be able to get fully absorbed into the core and somehow move around in an unfettered way, then I believe you are mistaken. 

  If you think that there’s something that can be done to magically expand road capacity to handle all of these additional cars in the city, then I believe you are mistaken.

  And if you think that adding a bike lane is the only reason you are currently stuck in traffic, then I believe you are missing the bigger picture.

  Over a decade ago, we made a decision in this region to encourage building up, instead of building out. And along with that decision came a necessary rethink of how we get around. That transition is what we are living through right now.

  The other thing we know is that the 4 modes of mobility that I started this post with are ordered from least sustainable to most sustainable. 

  Electric self-driving vehicles will reduce the impacts of driving, but it will also transform it into something that feels more like transit and less like the driving we know today. That will be a very good thing.

  But I’m not yet convinced that it will solve all of our problems. To do that I think we will need to adopt a much more balanced and unselfish view of what it takes to move around a city. That, of course, isn’t always easy.

  2015.10.04

• The Philadelphia (real estate) story

  Real estate is a local business. And this weekend in Philadelphia really reminded me of that.

  Here’s what I mean.

  The real estate story in Toronto is condos. We’re buildings lots and lots of condos. When my friend from Chicago recently visited Toronto for the first time, he told me that it feels very similar to Chicago, except that we have modern glass condo towers going up everywhere and they don’t. That’s our story right now.

  Low-rise housing in Toronto is becoming increasingly unaffordable (the average price of a detached home is well north of $1M) and so high-rise condos are now what many people can afford. When young people in Toronto talk about buying their first place, that now usually means a condo.

  But that’s not the story in Philadelphia.

  In Philadelphia, you can buy a 1,600 square foot, 2 storey, 2 bedroom rowhouse in a respectable neighborhood for sub US$400,000. And in speaking with my friends in Philly this weekend, that’s what young people are buying.

  This doesn’t mean that Philadelphia isn’t building new high-rise condos and apartments. It is. Obviously nowhere near as many as Toronto. But it is building. Far more than when I lived there before the Great Recession.

  However, the condo market is typically more upmarket. The target market isn’t so much first time buyers and the mass market; it’s more people who want full floor apartments in Rittenhouse Square. (I’m exaggerating only slightly.)

  Philadelphia is also building more rental towers than condo towers. (Rental has only recently become fashionable again in Toronto.)

  I’m guessing that a lot of this has to do with the fact that Philadelphia draws in a lot of transient students and academics each year. In fact, the most noticeably changed area from when I lived in Philly was University City. That’s the area that houses the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University.

  So there seems to be strong demand for new rental housing in the city. I’m told vacancies are very low. But when it comes time to buy, young people don’t look to condos like they do in Toronto. They are looking mostly to rowhouses.

  This is interesting to me because it’s the exact opposite of Toronto. In Toronto, low-rise is expensive and so lots more people are buying high-rise. In Philadelphia, high-rise is expensive and so people are buying low-rise.

  I guess that’s why they say real estate is a local business. What works in one city may not work in another.

  2015.08.17

• A few thoughts on Toronto’s rental resurgence

  

  Condos in Fog by Richard Gottardo on 500px

  Earlier today I attended a lunch and learn talking about the renewed interest in rental apartment development here in Toronto. Since this is a topic I’ve written about a few times here on Architect This City, I thought I would summarize some of my key takeaways from the panel discussion:

  • Market fundamentals are strong for purpose-built rental apartments. Vacancy is very low and demand will likely outstrip supply for many decades to come given the barriers to building (land availability, planning/approvals, and so on).
  • As of September 2014, CMHC reported 2,212 purpose-built rental units under construction in the Toronto region. And yet the annual demand for new rental housing is likely somewhere between 10,000 to 30,000 units (clearly some of this demand is being absorbed by condo rentals – the secondary rental market).
  • Millennials and retirees are seen as core markets for new rental apartments. Millennials want to live in urban centers and they like the flexibility that renting provides. Retirees want to know that they won’t be asked to move out because the owner wants to sell their condo unit.
  • It’s almost impossible to compete against condo developers when it comes to buying land (despite the next point). They (condo developers) will pay more. Therefore intensifying our “tower in a park” building stock is going to be a critical component of meeting rental demand in the region.
  • Part of what’s driving this interest in purpose-built rental (on the part of developers) is a softening condo market. So don’t be surprised when some developers flip back to condos when it makes financial sense to do so.

  It was interesting to hear this last point. It’s something that has been on my mind, but for whatever reason wasn’t really being talked about by the industry. That’s not to say that I think the condo market is in trouble though. It has just become more balanced. And ultimately that’s probably a good thing.

  Either way, I think that more rental and more housing options are a positive for the city and for consumers.

  2015.05.27

• Revisiting Charlotte

  

  Earlier this week, I wrote about the Charlotte Apartments in Berlin and tried to back into some of the numbers for the project. I wanted to compare the economics behind a mid-rise project in Berlin to one in Toronto.

  After I wrote that post I forwarded it to Michels Architecture – who are the architects behind the project. I thought they might be interested in reading about my (crappy) back of the napkin type of assessment and I was also hoping that they might be able to shed some additional light on the details.

  Well, they responded and graciously offered to do exactly that. So today I thought I would write a follow-up post with some additional details. I obviously don’t have everything – because they weren’t the developer for the project – but I still think you’ll find the information I got interesting.

  The building has a total of 3 parking spots and they’re all on the ground floor (you can see them in this post in the second photo towards the right). They were for the penthouse maisonette/duplex units. This means that there’s only one level below grade and it’s basically for mechanical systems, storage, and waste disposal. So why does this matter?

  It matters because it means lower construction costs and the ability to develop smaller sites where you may not be able to properly layout a parking garage without car elevators and other clever strategies. This is possible because, unlike Toronto, Berlin doesn’t have any parking minimums or maximums. 

  With respect to unit sizes, the penthouse units are 135 square meters or 1,453 square feet which, according to the architect, are small. From the 2nd to 6th floor, there are 4 units per floor and the sizes are 37 sm / 398 sf, 65 sm / 699 sf, 68 sm / 732 sf, and 81 sm / 872 sf. On the ground floor there are 5 units and they’re at 34 sm / 366 sf (x 2), 42 sm / 452 sf, 45 sm / 484 sf, and 76 sm / 818 sf. I would say that this is comparable to what you might find in a downtown Toronto condo project. Side note: Apparently the smallest units sold the quickest.

  As of December 2011, the average sale price was 4,120 € per square meter. At today’s exchange rate, that would convert to $5,815 per square meter or $540 per square foot (in Canadian dollars). If we translate that into 2014 dollars, that’s about $575 per square foot, which would be low for prime locations/buildings in Toronto.

  A big thanks to Michels Architecture for providing this additional information. It’s always great to get local insights. I hope you all enjoyed it – happy Friday.

  Images: Werner Huthmacher

  2014.10.10

• Exploring the Mimico waterfront

  

  This morning I explored Humber Bay Park, which is a waterfront park in the west end of Toronto. It’s in a neighborhood called Mimico that used to be a separate town, with its own mayor, until 1967. I honestly can’t remember the last time I was there, so it was fun to explore what felt like a new part of the city.

  Given its proximity to downtown and the fact that it’s very well connected to the water, the area is currently facing tremendous development pressures. In fact, as I was standing in line waiting to order an Americano, the conversation happening directly in front of me was all about how developers are fighting to buy up every piece of land they can find. Normally I would chime in, but today I decided to stay silent.

  

  Today the area is an interesting mix of old low-rise and mid-rise rental apartment buildings (many of which fell into decline a long time ago), and new high-rise condominiums that are all fighting for unobstructed views of the lake and downtown.

  

  There wasn’t a ton of street or public life going on, but it was certainly a beautiful place to spend a Sunday morning. As much as I’m looking forward to getting back into snowboarding, I’m not quite ready for summer to be over. So I’m happy that we’ve been having some great weather in the city.

  2014.09.07