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.
Today was an important milestone for Junction House: The construction crane was erected! The crew started early in the morning and we ended up having a perfect bluebird day (I don’t know where this expression comes from but it’s used all the time by skiers and snowboarders).
It’s been a tough winter for most of us. And so in my view, it is particularly important to celebrate these kinds of milestones and achievements. Thankfully, there seems to be a general optimism in the air these days. I think it’s going to be a great summer.
Now that the crane has been installed, it’s time to start building up.
At the beginning of this month, Restoration Hardware announced that it was making a $105 million equity investment in a development project in Aspen, Colorado. When completed, the project will house what the company is calling their “first RH ecosystem,” which will include an RH Gallery, RH Guesthouse, RH Bath House & Spa, RH Restaurants, and RH Residences. All of this is fascinating to me from an experiential retail, brand ecosystem, and real estate development standpoint. It also reinforces my belief that differentiated hotels and high-touch hospitality aren’t going anywhere, notwithstanding the fact that Airbnb is arguably now the largest “hotel company” in the world. People are hungry for these kinds of curated experiences, and they’re going to be positively starving once we get through this pandemic.
Aspen has been selected to develop the first RH ecosystem inclusive of an RH Bespoke Gallery, RH Guesthouse, RH Bath House & Spa, RH Restaurants, and our first RH Residences. The RH Gallery on Galena, currently under development, will offer two floors of the RH Interiors, Contemporary, Modern, and RH Ski House collections, plus Interior Design, Architecture, and Landscape Architecture services. Additionally, the Gallery will include a transparent glass rooftop restaurant with views of Aspen Mountain, a Wine & Barista Bar, plus two private dining rooms with fireplaces and retractable roofs. The RH Guesthouse at the Historic Crystal Palace, also currently under construction, will feature guest suites with fireplaces, a live fire restaurant, wine vault, private rooftop pool and dining terrace with views of Aspen Mountain, and the brand’s first RH Bath House & Spa. The RH Residences at the Historic Boomerang Lodge will include up to five fully furnished four bedroom custom homes, and The RH Residence on Red Mountain will be a fully furnished six bedroom home with multiple terraces and an infinity pool with views of downtown, Aspen Mountain and Independence Pass. All of the RH Residences will include membership to the RH Bath House & Spa, plus priority reservations at the brand’s restaurants and private dining venues.
The WSJ announced today that smart-lock company Latch is getting SPAC’ed (i.e. going public). The deal, which is sponsored by commercial real estate firm Tishman Speyer, values the company at about $1.56 billion.
One of the things that is attractive about Latch is that they’re a lot more than just a smart-lock company. They really bill themselves as being a “full-building operating system.” Their platform, called LatchOS, offers everything from access door solutions to guest/delivery management.
If you operate a multi-family apartment building, one of the first things that you would like to do away with is all of your suite entry keys. They are a pain to manage. So smart entry locks are a huge value-add. I guess that’s why 1 in 10 apartments in the US are now being built with LatchOS, according to the company.
Another thing that is attractive about Latch is that they operate as a SaaS/subscription service. So reoccurring revenue and (probably) a higher multiple. Given that changing all of the locks in a big apartment building is no simple task, there are also some natural barriers to churn.
To learn more about today’s announcement, you can check out the WSJ or TechCrunch.
When I was in graduate school, my plan was to create a vertically integrated design and development company. I loved designing things and wanted to remain close to those sorts of details, but I had already decided that I wasn’t going to be an architect in the traditional sense and that I was going to be a developer. And so my objective was to figure out a way to combine everything under one roof. How could we be designers, but also be the entrepreneurs that make buildings happen?
In some ways, Mackay Laneway House is a manifestation of that model. Through a partnership with Gabriel Fain Architects, we (Globizen Studio) have been heavily involved on the design side. Gabriel did all of the drawings and the overall architecture, but we weighed in (more than your typical client), selected most of the FF&E, and even designed things like the kitchen (with Scavolini) and the exterior signage. I wouldn’t call it true vertical integration, but we did start to blur the lines between architect/designer and developer.
One of the interesting things about this approach is that it begins to create some consistency and a bit of a branded product. The hope is that when Mackay Laneway House is fully complete, it will read as a Globizen project, which is not that dissimilar from what David Wex of Urban Capital was talking about in this recent podcast. Their projects are a specific kind of product. They generally repeat it, and if that’s not what you’re interested in, then you don’t buy an Urban Capital home.
But this also raises an important question: what is the role of architects and architecture in the case of buildings as very specific products? (This is something that we have discussed before on the blog.) Is the job of the architect to create an interesting exterior shell that then gets populated on the inside by a specific product offering? Or is it even worse, is architecture sometimes just an “empty vessel” that gets interior design and a brand slapped onto it? In some cases and with some projects, it does feel this way.
I am a firm believer in the value of architecture and design. An “empty vessel” is not architecture. It is, well, an empty vessel. And that is not what I aim for in any of the projects that I’m involved in. Creativity, function, thoughtfulness and, yes, beauty, are all important. At the same time, I think this is a valuable debate. These sorts of questions are helpful in dissecting the architecture/development value chain. And so I would be interested in hearing your thoughts in the comment section below.
Next Tuesday, January 19, I am helping to teach the introductory class of a Certificate of Real Estate Development program that is jointly offered by Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business and Azrieli School of Architecture & Urbanism. Here is a full list of the instructors and key note speakers that will be participating in the program. Obviously it is all being done online this time around.
One of the great things about this program is that it’s a partnership between their school of architecture and their school of business. As you might expect given my background, I am biased in my view that this is a great way to teach real estate development. And it’s one of the reasons why I enjoyed my time so much at the University of Pennsylvania. I was free to take classes at whatever “school” I wanted to.
When I later went on to study at the Rotman School, I actually tried to advocate for a better real estate development curriculum and for increased collaboration across the business and architecture schools (both alma maters). The response I got, at least back then, was that Rotman already had a real estate major and that it was fine just the way it was. Cool.
For more information or to register for Carleton’s Certificate of Real Estate Development program, click here. I think there are only a few spots remaining.
Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) and Joanne Wilson (also an investor) have been working on a passive house apartment building in Brooklyn for the last five years. Their development company is called Frame Home. And this past week they received a pretty great Christmas gift in the form of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy from NYC Buildings.
At 5 storeys and with only 10 two-bedroom units, you could classify this building as the kind “missing middle” housing that gets so much air time here in Toronto. And so not only have they managed to build relatively small, but they’ve done it using passive house design principles.
Here are some of the apartment building’s features:
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) structure
Passive house design approach
Triple-pane windows
Interior polished and insulated concrete walls (presumably to act as a thermal mass to moderate heating/cooling throughout the year)
Solar panels installed on the upper facade and roof (passive house design should, in theory, allow these to supply a big chunk of the building’s energy needs)
No fossil fuels used throughout the building — everything is electrical
Fully sub-metered units
Outdoor circulation spaces/stairs, providing access to a shared rooftop courtyard (I’m assuming these also serve as required egress for the building)
Dedicated elevator entrance for every suite (i.e. no interior circulation/corridor spaces)
Composting facilities within the building
Bike room connected to the ground-floor lobby
There’s also a co-working and community space planned for the ground floor called “Framework.” Interestingly enough, they have already responded to the current pandemic. Instead of open-air desks, you rent fully enclosed 8′ x 8′ pods that are sound-proofed and come with their own HVAC systems.
Congratulations Fred and Joanne on such an exciting and pioneering project. (I would love to see the development pro forma!) If you’d like to learn more about Frame 283, here is their website and here is a profile that the New York Times did on the project back in January. Building with CLT is apparently prohibited in NYC. Frame 283 got an exemption.
In life and business I find that we are often faced with decisions that pit emotion against rationality. What I mean by this is that maybe your ego is telling you to do something. And maybe, as a matter of principle, you know with certainty that you’re right. But when you take a step back and think about how that principled decision might play out, you realize that it is probably not the right life or business decision.
In the case of the real estate development business, you might realize that it is not the right decision for the project. And that’s really the key question to be asking yourself in this business. What is most beneficial for the project? It is not about what’s most beneficial for my ego.
Of course, taking emotion out of the equation can sometimes be difficult. Maybe you feel like you’re losing if you give in and don’t follow what you think is right. But the truth is that if emotion and rationality don’t line up, then you’re likely going to have to pick a side. And if you make a bad or the wrong business decision, then you’re definitely losing, even if your ego might feel a little better.
The construction process can be a pain in the ass. It’s messy. It’s inefficient. It’s always filled with surprises. And you could argue, as many have before, that every job is really a custom job — a kind of prototype. But at the same time, there is something so deeply satisfying about seeing a building come to life. Part of that satisfaction no doubt comes from the fact that it usually takes years and years to get to the point in which you’re digging holes, pouring concrete, and framing out spaces. It’s almost as if we don’t want things to get built. It’s a feeling of “finally.” But perhaps the bigger part of this satisfaction stems from the fact that building is creating and making something new. It’s about imagining what something could be and then going out and doing everything you can to make that a reality. Some people won’t like what you’re trying to build. But they might when it’s finished. And it is almost certainly not going to be an easy process. But it’s a fulfilling one. Few things are as rewarding as creating and making something new.
Why do some buildings cost more to build than others? And how is it that some cities, as a whole, seem to build more cost effectively than others? Without getting into the specifics of how different markets work, I thought it would be valuable to outline some of the cost drivers that impact new developments. But keep in mind that this is by no means an exhaustive list. So, please feel free to add whatever I’ve missed to the comment section below.
Below-grade parking is hugely expensive. It’s almost always a loss leader. You lose money building it. That’s why parking ratios matter a great deal. If you’re building in the suburbs at 1 to 1 parking vs. 0.2 in the core, you’re simply building more of something that doesn’t make money. There’s also the question of whether you need to build a watertight below-grade, or if you can discharge any groundwater into the municipal infrastructure. Big cost difference.
Union vs. non-union construction labor.
Building stepbacks add cost and create additional complexity. To build more cost effectively, you really want repetition. But terraces are awesome. I get it.
Impact fees, development levies, and other government fees can vary widely across cities. As I’ve mentioned many times before on the blog, these line items can add up to 20-24% of the price of a new condominium here Toronto.
Time is expensive. One of the bigger line items in a development pro forma is financing interest charges. The longer things take, the more expensive the housing needs to be.
Markets are unique. Quebec, for example, has relatively low electricity rates. For this reason, it’s pretty common for homes in Quebec to use electric heating, which is usually pretty cost effective to install. According to this 2019 study, 68% of Ontario households rely on natural gas heating. In Quebec, the number is only 5%.
Depending on what you’re building next to, you may face additional costs. For example, if you’re building right up against a rail line, you may need to construct a “crash wall” in order to safeguard against possible derailments and you’ll probably need to up the STC rating on your windows because of the higher noise levels. These costs will not be insignificant.
In theory, land costs are supposed to be the residual claimant in a development pro forma. What that means is that you should back into your land value after calculating your projected revenue and considering all of your other development costs. If your revenue is lower, so too should be your land cost. Land cost as a percentage of total costs will, naturally, vary across different markets.
That is the argument that Joshua Gordon, who is an assistant professor in the Simon Fraser University School of Public Policy, recently made in this opinion piece in the Globe and Mail. In his view, there’s no evidence to suggest that housing supply can actually help housing affordability. It’s just something that developers throw around to “stymie action on the demand-side” and to help with their rezoning efforts. Really, the housing problem is due to intense demand from foreign buyers, investors, and from “high rental demand.”
Now, as many of you know, I am a developer, and not a professor. So you can take this post however you would like. But I do have a few thoughts.
One, I think it’s an oversimplification to argue that there have been no regulatory changes over the last decade that have meaningfully and negatively impacted the supply of new housing. To give you one example, this fall, development levies in Toronto will complete a phase-in that has seen them double over the last couple of years. Almost a quarter of the price of a new residential condominium now goes to pay government fees and taxes. This has an impact on supply, even if the “regulatory environment” hasn’t necessarily changed.
Two, I don’t buy the argument that, “surrounding cities have also seen rapid price appreciation and it’s easier to build there, so housing supply mustn’t be the problem.” Building outside of cities like Toronto and Vancouver isn’t necessarily easier. In fact, in some cases it can be more difficult if they’re not accustomed to more progressive urban infill-type developments.
Three, it’s important to keep in mind that we have a financing structure in place that biases the types of homes (specifically residential condominiums) that get built. This approach is designed to mitigate financial risk, but it also means that investors serve an important function in the delivery of new housing. I’m not saying that the system is perfect; but I am saying that things are maybe not as simple as they may seem.
Four, just because there are cities with lots of single-detached homes and relatively affordable housing, I don’t think we can safely assume that single-family land use policies have no impact on supply and pricing in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. In fact, I would argue the opposite. This probably goes to show you the importance of an elastic housing supply. Indeed, some of the most affordable housing markets are dominated by low-rise houses precisely because it is a typology that is quicker and cheaper to build than most urban infill housing.
Finally, I’m not sure why anyone would consider high rental demand and a strong labor market to be symptomatic of a problem. Isn’t that what you usually want out of cities? You want there to be an abundance of good jobs that pay people money so that they can, you know, have a life and consume things like housing. But maybe that’s just the way that I look at things. I am a developer after all.
