Tag: development

• Urban China’s empty homes

  

  China Evergrande Group has been in the news lately for being one of the most indebted property companies in the world. The company is now looking to raise some $5 billion by selling a stake in one of its business lines. That seems like a lot of money, but apparently it has upwards of $300 billion in liabilities. As I was reading about the company (in this WSJ article) I was surprised by some other stats about China’s housing market. According to some sources, nearly a third of the country’s GDP can now be tied back to real estate-related activities (see above chart). On top of this, about 21% of homes in urban China were thought to be vacant as of 2017. This equated to about 65 million empty homes. I don’t know what the exact numbers look like today, but these are staggering figures that speak to overbuilding.

  Chart: WSJ

  2021.10.04

• Pretextual planning

  Strong Towns recently published an interesting set of articles talking about something they refer to as “pretextual planning.” Articles here and here. What they mean by this is that sometimes we create planning rules not necessarily because we think they are the right thing to do, but because they serve as good bargaining chips when dealing with developers and builders. For example, let’s not eliminate parking minimums but instead concede on it during the entitlement process. This, the articles argue, is not good practice. And I would of course agree with that.

  But here is another very valid point that is made: when you make building so painfully complicated you end up creating a whole bunch of negative externalities. Not only does the cost of housing and building go up, but you also 1) make it more difficult for smaller builders to participate in the market and 2) you end up increasing the minimum size of new developments. And that is because as projects get more complicated and expensive, you end up needing larger and larger projects to amortize / justify the development expenses.

  It’s really too bad.

  2021.09.13

• Development as a leading indicator

  

  Building new buildings takes a really long time. It is not uncommon for development timelines to to span 5-10 years, and sometimes even longer. It is particularly frustrating when you see unnecessary roadblocks and delays throughout the process. But that’s a topic for another post.

  Perhaps one of the positives of these timelines is that they force you to think well into the future. Take for example electric vehicles. Most car manufacturers have already announced aggressive electrification targets for the year 2030.

  What that means is that if you’re starting a new project today, you have to assume that it will be completed into a world where many more people will be coming home and plugging in their car. Perhaps it will be the majority of people. So you probably need to plan for that.

  Another way to think about development is that it is a leading indicator for what’s coming. If we stick with the example of cars and parking, I think it’s pretty clear that parking is becoming increasingly scarce in our biggest cities. The pressures are simply too great.

  In all of our Toronto projects, we are currently building no more than about 0.4 parking spaces per suite. And there’s pressure to bring this number down even further. There are lots of examples of zero parking. The biggest reason is costs, but we also know that big cities don’t function well when everyone is driving around.

  This is also not a new trend.

  If you look at the multi-family buildings that Toronto completed in and around the 60s and 70s, many will have parking ratios in the range of 1-2 parking spaces per suite. This is totally untenable in today’s environment (except for a small subset of the market) and I bet you that a lot of this parking is now sitting vacant.

  Things change. Development can sometimes tell you what those changes might be.

  Photo by Michael Fousert on Unsplash

  2021.08.09

• Risk and architecture

  Building things, as we all know, is a risky endeavor. I think of myself as an optimist, but the reality is that there are countless things that can go wrong. There’s approvals risk, political risk, market risk, construction risk, design risk, and many other kinds of risk, some/many of which will be entirely unforeseen. If you asked me two years ago, I wouldn’t have listed pandemic risk as being all that high up on the list.

  So one way to think about the process of building/developing is that it is an exercise in risk mitigation. This makes it sound a lot less sexy than “city building.” Given this, there can be a natural and understandable tendency to want to repeat what worked the last time around. Why make a change and introduce more risk into the system if you don’t have to, right? This is arguably one of the reasons why it is often said that the real state industry isn’t all that innovative. Too busy managing risk.

  To give a specific example, let’s say you’re really focused on managing design risk. In this case, you might make the decision to always work with the same architect. This way you can establish a set of typical approaches and a standard spec. You know how to work together and you know what you’re getting when it comes to working drawings. Rinse and repeat as best you can.

  There is also something to be said about a kind of product-driven or branded approach to development. In this case you want some consistency to help build a specific brand and experience. And just because you’re using the same firm, doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t innovate and be design forward. This is what great architects do. Think Foster + Partners and Apple. Their stores are powerful brand symbols but also wonderful and highly site specific.

  An alternative approach might be to continually use different (design) architects. And maybe partnering with an array of celebrated firms is part of your brand story. You introduce a certain degree of design risk because you’re now trying out and building new relationships, but you could perhaps argue that you’re mitigating other risks. Does using a brand name architect help to reduce market risk, for example? In some markets, it’s almost essential.

  I don’t think there’s a right or wrong approach here. Use the same firm, or don’t. Use international starchitects, or don’t. The point is simply that development is fraught with risks that need to be managed. Design is one of many. How you choose to do that depends on what you’re trying to do and what you’re after.

  2021.07.12

• Our sustainability goals and the price of carbon

  This is an interesting article talking about the price of carbon and where it will need to go if we are to get to zero carbon emissions by 2050. The current price of carbon on the EU’s Emissions Trading System is around $59 per tonne. But according to the OECD, carbon will need to be closer to $150 per tonne by 2030 to keep the world on track with its sustainability goals. What this means is that if you emit carbon, it will get more expensive to do that.

  The article also suggests that there is talk of a minimum price on carbon that would slowly increase over time. This would provide greater certainty to investors who are buying/trading carbon, while at the same time encouraging a broader push away from carbon emissions. This proposal has been backed by the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, which is a group of companies that collectively represent about $6.6 trillion of assets under management.

  I think it is clear that we are headed in this direction. But it is going to be an expensive transition. Take, for example, the case of new buildings. Many/most cities now have sustainability goals that similarly increase — become more stringent — over time. The thinking is that this gradual transition allows the development industry to incrementally adapt. Makes sense.

  However, there are real challenges. Generally speaking, these new targets increase the cost of building. The result is a set of opposing forces. We want more sustainable buildings, but we also want more affordable housing. The problem is that the former often works against the latter, even though it is the right thing to do. And so it is not only about the industry catching up to new targets, it is also about the market catching up through higher rents and higher sale prices.

  My view is that offsets and subsidies are important to rebalancing some of these forces. Because without them, it is likely that we are doing things that run counter to each other.

  2021.07.07

• Releasing the shackles on mid-rise development

  

  I love mid-rise buildings. I think they are an incredibly livable scale of housing, which is why I am looking forward to moving into Junction House when we begin occupancies next year. But as we have talked about many times before on the blog, the mid-rise economics are challenging in this city, which is why we also don’t have any other Avenue-style mid-rise projects in the pipeline right now. We haven’t been able to find land where the math works.

  Here are two excerpts from a recent Globe and Mail article — titled “Toronto’s mix of planning rules limits growth of mid-rise housing” — that speaks to this dynamic:

  For well over two decades, Toronto’s official plan has called for transit-oriented intensification along the “Avenues,” much of it expected in the form of mid-rise apartments that can be approved “as of right” – meaning without zoning or official plan appeals. Such buildings are often seen as more livable and human scale than 50- or 60-storey towers.

  Yet, ironically, the highly prescriptive Mid-Rise Guidelines – combined with skyrocketing land, labour and building costs, as well as timelines that can run to six years for a mid-sized building – have turned these projects into pyramid-shaped unicorns, often filled with deep, dark and narrow units dubbed “bowling alleys.”

  “The economics are so frail,” says architect Dermot Sweeny, founding principal of Sweeny & Co., who describes the angular plane requirements as “a massive cost” because they make the structure more complicated and expensive while reducing the amount of leasable or saleable floor space.

  The critiques extend beyond the industry. Professor of architecture Richard Sommer, former dean of the John H. Daniels Faculty of Landscape, Architecture and Design at the University of Toronto, describes the controls in the guidelines as “very crude.” “They’re built around a mindset of deference to low-rise communities.”

  My opinion is that, at a minimum, we need to revisit the “guidelines” that govern these kinds of projects and we need to make this scale of development “as-of-right.” In the same way that laneway suites work, where you simply apply for a building permit, we need to make it just as easy for mid-rise housing. There just too many barriers and too many opportunities for something to come up that could hold up the entire project for months or years.

  Building at a variety of scales is important for the fabric and vitality of our cities. Unfortunately, I have all but made up my mind that small doesn’t work unless it’s as-of-right. I would love to build another laneway house and I fully expect that to happen at some point in the near future. But I just can’t seem to get my head around another mid-rise building right now. I wish that wasn’t the case. And it’s certainly not because of a lack of effort.

  2021.06.25

• China is building and megalopolises are now national policy

  

  Well here are some interesting figures (via MIT Technology Review):

  • In the past two decades, about 400 million people moved into China’s cities — so more than the entire population of the United States
  • By 2035, about 70% of China’s entire population is expected to be urban (up from 60% today and up from 30% two decades ago)
  • To accommodate this scale of growth, China’s national urban development approach has shifted to something that now revolves around city clusters, or megalopolises (term coined by French geographer Jean Gottmann back in the 1950s to describe the Boston-Washington corridor in the Northeastern US)
  • By 2035, there are expected to be five major city clusters (see above)
  • One of the reasons for this is to improve cooperation across the various clusters — less competition and less redundancy
  • But it’s also about creating smaller more manageable cities — is this what one needs to do after a certain scale, go polycentric?
  • To service these clusters, China is rolling out a network of 16 new high-speed rail lines
  • By 2035, China expects to have 200,000 kilometers of rail, with a third of it being high-speed — assuming this happens, China will be home to 60% of the world’s high-speed rail coverage
  • Current cost estimates for the construction of this network comes out to about US$150 million per kilometer
  • 1-2-3 Rule: The plan is that everyone should be able to get around a city within 1 hour; a city cluster within 2 hours; and travel between the country’s clusters inside of 3 hours

  China is building.

  2021.06.13

• Patio season: on

  

  

  

  Shot on a DJI Mavic Mini and edited in Lightroom.

  2021.06.12

• To yield or not to yield

  If you’re building a multi-family rental building, you’re almost certainly building it “on spec.” What this means is that you’re building an empty building and, once it’s done, you will then work to rent it out. (Nobody rents an apartment years in advance.) In this scenario, you will know what your costs are once the building is complete, but you won’t really know what your revenue will be until you start leasing. If demand is strong and the market has moved since you started building, maybe your rents will be a pleasant surprise. If the market has moved in the opposite direction since you started building, your rents might be an unfortunate surprise. The laneway house I recently completed is an example of a spec rental building. I built it without a tenant, but I assumed that I could rent it out upon completion. That proved to be true, but mind you it was only one unit. So it was relatively low risk.

  If you’re building an office building, it is bit more common to have some pre-leasing in place. Early on in my career, I worked on an office development where we started construction with about 25% of the leasing complete. This wasn’t enough for construction financing, but we saw that demand was strong and we needed to start right away in order to meet our lead tenant’s occupancy timing. And so we made the decision to go. We ran on equity for the first bit of construction, but once we completed enough leasing we were able to place our construction facility and lower the project’s overall equity requirement. We took a chance and everything ended up working out okay. But it could have not worked out. What would have happened if a pandemic hit after we started construction? Leasing activity would have completely stopped.

  If you’re building a condo building (at least in this city), you’ll likely be pre-selling your suites. You don’t necessarily have to do this. There are examples of well-capitalized condo developers building on spec without any pre-sales whatsoever. (Build, lock in your costs, and then sell.) But generally most developers will pre-sell, secure their construction financing, and then begin construction. In some ways this lowers your risks, as well overall systemic risk in the market. It also lowers your equity requirement as a developer. But it does create another possible risk. Once you pre-sell, you’re effectively locking in and capping your revenues. So you better have a very good handle on your costs. Otherwise you could be exposing yourself to cost escalations without any way to claw back some of your margins.

  The other thing to consider is whether you want to yield or not. Is it better to sell all of your suites as soon as possible (bird in hand) or sell only what you need, holdback the rest, and hope that prices increase going forward? I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer here. Some developers don’t want any market risk and so they take the bird in hand when they can. Other developers prefer to profit maximize and/or safeguard themselves against unforeseen costs, and so they sit on inventory. If you have unsold suites, you can always push revenues. Either way, what is hopefully clear from this post is that development is risky. This is just one example of some of the decisions that need to be made. There are countless others. Sometimes you’ll get it right. And sometimes you won’t. Hopefully the former happens more than the latter.

  2021.03.23

• Housing supply and house price dynamics in the UK

  In the fourth quarter of last year, the average house price to earnings ratio in the UK was about 8.4x. Apparently this is about as high as it has been in the past 120 years. But interestingly enough, if you go back to the 19th century, this ratio was even higher. It was over 12x back in 1845, but then went on a steady decline until about the 1920s. What changed, according to some researchers, is three things: homes got smaller (making them more affordable), incomes rose, and supply increased.

  So what’s going on today? The obvious answer is perhaps that interest rates are low. But in this recent FT article by Martin Wolf, he argues that that’s not really the primary driver. Part of his logic is that low interest rates are a global phenomenon. And so how is it that real home prices in the UK rose 93% between 2000 and 2020, but only 29% in Germany? There must be some other structural force(s) at work. (Germany has a lower homeownership rate for whatever that’s worth.)

  

  Wolf argues that it’s a problem of housing supply. Very little housing was built during WW2, for obvious reasons, but housing delivery did really spike in the post-war period in the UK. Local authorities also played a major role. If completions from 2000 to 2019 had averaged the same rate seen between 1950 and 1970, the country would have 2.9 million more homes today, representing a 13% increase to total dwelling count.

  This, Wolf argues, would be having an impact on house price dynamics.

  Chart: Financial Times

  2021.03.22