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.

Tag: condos

  • The most popular building amenities (according to a small subset of people)

    Here are the results from my primitive multi-unit building amenities survey:

    Gym is number 1. No surprise there. 46% of respondents said it was in their top 3. 

    Rooftop outdoor space at number 2 was perhaps a bit surprising. But then again, who doesn’t love a good rooftop patio?

    As for concierge service, I tend to think this was driven by package delivery. That’s certainly the biggest value add for me.

    One standout near the top, for me at least, is co-working space. Andrew LeFleur made mention of this on Twitter and I think he’s right: The changing nature of work is making these spaces more valuable in multi-family dwellings.

    And now some color on the above results.

    436 amenity selections were made as part of this survey. 

    About half of the respondents were from the Greater Toronto Area, followed by Calgary, San Francisco, Ottawa, Boston, New York City, Denver, Los Angeles, Paris, Miami, and many other cities. Shoutout to whoever responded from Kuala Lumpur and Porto Alegre.

    In terms of “Other” amenities, there were suggestions for a band rehearsal space, a vending machine, a grassy area for sports, and programming the helps you meet your neighbors.

    In terms of this one last, it can be tricky for condo buildings. Developers only provide the space. It’s then up to management. But I’ve seen it done very well in rental buildings.

    Are you surprised by any of the results from this survey?

  • What are the most important condo and rental building amenities?

    Last night I casually asked the

    Twittersphere

    what the most important condo amenity is, besides a gym. 

    That tweet got quite a few responses – everything from rock climbing to a proper facility for realtor lock boxes.

    Given the response, I thought it would be worthwhile to be a bit more rigorous in this analysis. So I have created an online survey that you can very quickly fill out by clicking here

    Here’s how this is going to work:

    – You have to enter your email address. Sorry, some friction. I figured that would make the data a bit more reliable. Don’t worry your email is safe.

    – You can select a maximum of 3 amenities. One of them can be “Other”, in which case you would then enter in an amenity not already found on the list.

    – The order of the amenities in the survey is being randomized so as to avoid any possible it’s-near-the-top-and-I’m-too-lazy-to-scroll bias.

    – You’ll be able to see the results of the survey after you’ve responded. I’ll also post the results to this blog so that it’s public and people learn things. Individual emails will, of course, never be published.

    Developers should be building what people actually want and will use. Now is your chance to tell us what that is. Click here for the survey.

  • RioCan REIT announces new residential group

    On Monday, RioCan REIT announced its new residential brand: RioCan Living. This is the group that will now be responsible for redeveloping the 43 properties within their portfolio that they have identified as having intensification potential. Here’s how they are describing the new brand: “RioCan Living delivers best in class purpose-built rental units and condos along Canada’s most prominent public transit lines.”

    It has been interesting watching RioCan over the last 6 months. In the fall they announced that they would be selling off somewhere around $1.5 billion of their portfolio to rebalance toward Canada’s six largest markets, and in particular the Toronto market. And with this recent unveiling it is clear that they are doubling down on transit-oriented mixed-use communities as a way to future-proof their retail portfolio against disruption.

    Major markets. High-density. Transit-oriented. This shouldn’t surprise any of you. Here is a link to their latest investor presentation in case you’re curious.

  • Toward more family condos

    The Ryerson City Building Institute and Urbanation recently published a terrific report called: Bedrooms in the Sky. Is Toronto Building the Right Condo Supply? 

    Here is a quick synopsis: The 35-44 year old age bracket in this city will see significant growth over the next decade; single family homes are really expensive; and we’re not building enough family-friendly condo units.

    When Urbanation looked at the data for all condo units currently under construction they found that the unit mixes still skewed toward 1-bedroom units, but that the number of 3-bedroom units is starting to trend upward. That feels right.

    The report also talks about the affordability gap between condos and houses. The average condo in the Greater Toronto Area costs about $511,000, while the average detached house costs $1,134,000.

    However, this isn’t exactly an accurate comparison because the average condo is smaller in size than the average house. I think a better metric is to look at price per square foot.

    Also, houses give you the flexibility of a secondary suite. Right now that usually means a basement apartment, but pretty soon it’ll likely include a laneway suite. That creates an additional income stream and helps with overall affordability.

    In any event, up until maybe recently, houses generally looked cheaper on a per square foot basis. And my view – which I have written about extensively on this blog – was that as soon as houses become “more expensive”, we’ll see an uptick in larger family-oriented condos.

    A few weeks ago I went to an open house in a desirable area of Toronto. It was for a 1,300 sf semi-detached house with good bones, but in need of a full gut. Basement was low, only suitable for humans around 5′ tall. It sold for $1 million.

    Let’s say that house needs $300,000 to bring it up to the level of a new condo. If that doesn’t include some sort of extension, now you’re in for $1.3 million or about $1,000 per square foot. You can still find a condo for less than that.

    Which is one of the reasons why I think we’re now starting to see an uptick in larger/family units. (We are trying to do it at Junction House.) 

    But like all things in real estate, these things move slowly. The condos under construction today were designed years ago. Changes take time to work themselves through the system.

  • Seattle vs. Vancouver

    A reader recently shared an article with me called: Why Seattle builds apartments, but Vancouver, BC, builds condos. Thanks for that.

    It’s a good summary of the differences between these two markets and why over the last five years less than 4% of all new residential units built in Seattle have been condos. The story is obviously very different in Vancouver.

    It’s also a good reminder that incentives matter. Capital has a funny way of flowing to where the returns are greatest.

    Chart: Sightline Institute

  • How permissive zoning created Toronto’s King-Spadina district

    image

    Over the weekend, Marcus Gee of the Globe and Mail published a terrific article about Toronto’s King-Spadina district and how “condos conquered a rundown district of the city.” (This post will argue that condos were not the catalyst, but an outcome of other changes.)

    The image at the top of this post (City of Toronto Archives) is the intersection of King Street and Spadina Avenue around the early 1900s. And here is roughly that same view from May 2016 (Google Streetview):

    image

    From this perspective, it may look like not much has changed. The buildings at the two corners are still there, although their uses have changed. The streetcars are still running, although we now have slightly newer machines. And there are overhead lines providing a canopy across the intersection.

    But as Gee points out, the reality is that in recent years King-Spadina has arguably seen more change and development than any other precinct in the city:

    No fewer than 99 projects have been built, approved or pitched since 2004. That’s one quarter of the total for the entire city and more than the count for two vast suburban districts – Scarborough and Etobicoke – combined. King-Spadina is overtaking even high-rise hubs such as Yonge and Eglinton in midtown Toronto and the Bay and Yonge corridors downtown.

    Below is a diagram showing the built form of that change.

    image

    But as we talk about this massive change, I would argue that this didn’t happen by accident. 

    Gee starts his piece by saying that “cities have an endless ability to evolve, to rebound, to reinvent and regenerate themselves, sometimes in ways that would astonish generations past.” I would add one word: Successful cities have an endless ability to evolve.

    King-Spadina has indeed reinvented itself many times. Prior to its current iteration, it served as a manufacturing district and as the center of Toronto’s garment industry. But from the 1970s through to the early 1990s, the area fell into decline as its manufacturing base left.

    The game changing moment happened in 1996 when “The Kings” – which includes the areas around both King-Spadina and King-Parliament – were redesignated as “Regeneration Areas.” The overarching goal was to deregulate away from single-use industrial zoning and allow the area’s buildings, both old and new, to take on almost any use.

    Now all of a sudden it was possible to have light industrial, commercial, entertainment, retail, residential, and live/work uses all mixed together. And with the bones already in place, the market responded. 

    In my view, it is these earlier changes that laid the groundwork for what has become one of the most exciting neighborhoods in the country.

    However, today some are worried about whether or not this is too much of a good thing. And I am sure that many would like to blame developers for piling up in this neighborhood. Why continue to build here when there’s lots of land elsewhere?

    King-Spadina is a perfect example of what Richard Florida would call “winner-take-all urbanism.” There are powerful clustering forces at play both globally and locally in our cities. And so there are real economic reasons for why King-Spadina has seen more development than Etobicoke and Scarborough combined.

    Permissive land use policies and the right building stock may have kickstarted things, but now economies of agglomeration have taken over. Retailers, restaurants, clubs, tech companies and people, among many others, are now fighting for space in this area for the same reason that Toronto’s garment industry once felt the need to cluster here. There are tangible benefits to doing so.

    What people are effectively asking today is at what point do we start to see diseconomies of agglomeration. This is an important question and one that needs to be actively managed. 

    Without getting into any of the details, I believe that the King Street Pilot Study – which puts transit first along the King corridor – is one very appropriate answer to this question. It is a direct response to diseconomies of agglomeration, in this case traffic congestion.

    But there are important corollaries to this question that are also worth considering: How do we now create more King-Spadinas and how do we create more broad-based and inclusive urbanism in the face of these powerful clustering forces? These are questions that go well beyond King-Spadina, but there are lessons to be learned from the successes seen on the west side of downtown Toronto.

    Images via The Globe and Mail and Google Street View

  • Residential agri-tecture

    Last month Curated Properties and Windmill launched a “residential agri-tecture” project on Toronto’s Queen West called The Plant

    The entire development is oriented around our connection to food. The building will have an interior greenhouse and an industrial style common area kitchen for food prep and events. Each unit will have micro-garden beds for fresh herbs and lattices for growing your own food.

    This is a trend that I hope we see more of going forward. Toronto developers such as TAS have been incorporating urban agricultural elements into their projects for a number of years now and I believe it has the potential to become quite common, particularly for end user buildings. 

    I grew veggies and hot peppers on my terrace one summer and there was something really nice about walking outside to harvest a salad. The hardest part for me, though, was getting enough sun exposure. Some of my crop wasn’t getting enough sun, but for whatever reason my hot peppers really thrived.

    If all of this does really catch on, I could imagine a world where condos and apartments get marketed based on the precise amount of sunshine hours they receive throughout the year. Perhaps some developers are already doing that.

  • Only $800,000 over asking

    Heads-up: This is going to be a Toronto-specific post.

    This week there was a lot of chatter about escalating house prices in this city (though that seems to be most weeks these days).

    Paul Johnston listed a detached house in Dufferin Grove for $1,285,000 and then turned around and sold it for just over $2.1mm, with 17 potential buyers at the table. I also saw my friend post a note this morning that the average price of a detached house in Toronto has now surpassed $1.5mm.

    What I am curious about – and this is a question for all of you who live here and/or follow the market – is what response does escalating house prices trigger for you? I asked this on Twitter (via a poll), but I would be curious to get your thoughts here in the comments.

    Do you feel rushed out of fear that you may get priced out of the market? Are you now turning your attention to out of the city? Or are you looking at other housing types, such as condos? I am sure the responses will be split.

    My response: condos.

  • Deep thoughts on apartment layouts

    This morning while I was having a bowl of cereal and fruit, I came across this floor plan from 75 Portland Street, Toronto by CORE Architects:

    It’s a 2-storey unit with a den and double height living room on the main floor and 1 bedroom and 1 media lounge (that could act like a 2nd bedroom, but doesn’t have a window so it can’t be called that) on the second floor.

    This floor plan is a perfect example of what I was getting at with my post: The long and narrow of property affordability

    Rough rough, the overall dimensions look to be about 4.3m wide x 12m deep. It’s a fairly deep plan, which means you have to be careful how much “frontage” you give it. If the apartment gets too wide, then it could quickly become too big and potentially unaffordable.

    With the above dimensions, and if you didn’t go 2 storeys, you’d be forced to do an inset/recessed bedroom. The living room would get all of the windows. And if you made the apartment wider to accommodate that main floor bedroom, then you’d likely end up doing an inset/recessed 2nd bedroom, anyways, because of how big the unit had become. So there are trade-offs to consider.

    I’ve seen this layout first hand and I like it a lot. I think it’s an elegant solution to the challenge of deep floor plates. 

    But what do you think? It may not suit everyone’s needs, so I would be really curious to hear your thoughts in the comment section below or on Twitter.

  • The Lofts at SoDoSoPa

    Introducing The Lofts at SoDoSoPa and The Residences at The Lofts at SoDoSoPa (South of Downtown South Park).

    The following South Park video is a great parody of every real estate marketing video you’ve ever seen. Real estate marketing can be so terrible.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAPmjcBnxIs?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

    This video is probably old news, but I never watch TV and so it’s the first time I’m seeing it.

    If you can’t see the embedded video, click here.