Brandon Donnelly

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.

Subscribe

Tag: financial times

  • Why you can’t price-control your way out of a housing shortage

    Spain has one of the lowest homebuilding rates in Europe. Over the last decade, it has barely expanded its housing supply, according to this recent FT article by John Burn-Murdoch.

    When you layer on increased immigration, rising tourism, and growing housing demand from digital nomads and others, you naturally get an environment where rents outstrip income growth. According to the same article, more than 50% of young Spanish adults (aged 18-34) now live with their parents!

    The knee-jerk reaction to all of this by most governments is stronger rent controls. Rents are growing too quickly, so let’s just block them from doing that, right? While this certainly does help the already housed, study after study shows that it has negative consequences for the broader housing market.

    Non-controlled rents go up, overall housing quality drops, and, perhaps most importantly, new housing supply goes down, further exacerbating the initial problem it’s trying to solve.

    You can’t intervene in the market and not expect there to be second- and third-order consequences. In this case, it’s akin to telling a group of kids there’s an ice cream shortage, fixing the price below the cost of production for the few who do have access, and then wondering why other ice cream trucks don’t show up to service the unmet demand.

    Spain doesn’t seem to get this, but other markets appear to. According to Burn-Murdoch, Ireland recently “watered down rent controls over concerns they were contributing to weak rates of new construction in the rental sector.”

    It needs to be understood that there are no shortcuts to solving housing crises. You need to start from first principles and do the hard work of building housing.

    Diagram by John Burn-Murdoch via the FT

  • How tax policy shapes the immigration equation

    Immigration is an exciting topic (to put it one way). Over the last few years, public sentiment around it has shifted significantly in Canada from viewing it as a positive thing to thinking there’s too much of it.

    But as John Burn-Murdoch points out in this recent FT article about the real fiscal costs of immigration, it’s important to be precise about what’s going on. Our decisions and policies guide assimilation and affect whether an immigrant becomes a net cost or net contributor.

    Here, for example, is an interesting chart showing what pay percentile a primary earner needs to reach in order to become a net contributor to the country:

    In the UK, the average couple arriving at age 30 needs the primary earner to have a salary at the 55th percentile, compared to only the 28th percentile in Germany. This is because of the relatively low tax rates for low-income workers in the UK, and flatter tax regimes in the other countries in the chart.

    This is just one example demonstrating that “immigration,” to use the words of Burn-Murdoch, is “not a fixed thing across time and place.” Who are we attracting? And what policies do we have in place to ensure people economically assimilate and become net contributors?

  • From hours billed to value created

    Large law firms typically operate on a structure known as a pyramid or leverage model. The basic idea is that at the top there is a small group of equity partners who are expected to make it rain and bring in big clients, but who don’t actually do most of the work.

    Beneath them is a middle layer of senior people who manage the day-to-day, and at the very bottom is an army of juniors who do most of the actual grunt work.

    Because the base is wide and the juniors are getting billed at hourly rates that far exceed their fixed salaries, the partners at the top get the benefit of the excess funds flowing upward. It is a model that relies on juniors working long hours, most people burning out and leaving, and a relative few becoming partners.

    But as we know, AI disrupts everything. Interestingly enough, Wall Street firms are reportedly going to their big law firms and saying, “Hey, now that AI is empowering you to work fewer hours and be way more efficient, we’d like you to tell us exactly how many hours you’re saving and reduce your fees accordingly.”

    According to this recent FT article, the broad expectation is that the cost per transaction is going to come down significantly and that legal firms will need to adopt different business models in the short term.

    I don’t think this necessarily means that legal firms will become less profitable, but it certainly encourages people to move away from “this is how many hours I worked” to “this is all the value that I created for you.”

  • France’s rental ban on energy-inefficient homes

    One of the things that you’ll notice on real estate listings in France is an Energy Performance Diagnostics (EPD) rating. In French, it gets reversed, and so it’s a DPE (diagnostic de performance énergétique). What it tells you is how much energy the dwelling (or building) consumes and how much greenhouse gas it emits. And it is a requirement on all real estate listings and for all dwellings, except those that are occupied for less than 4 months per year. The output of this diagnostic is a rating from A (best) to G (worst).

    According to FT, this is how primary residences in France rank today:

    Less than 5% of homes are rated A and B (the most energy efficient). And many more are rated G and F. Beyond just being energy inefficient, this is potentially a problem because there are penalties and restrictions for the lowest rated homes, one of which is that you are not allowed to rent out the property. Right now and as of January 1 of this year, the upper consumption limit is 450 kWh per square meter per year. Go above this and the home becomes ineligible.

    This number is also planned to reduce over time:

    • January 1, 2023: Rental ban on properties with G+ energy label
    • January 1, 2025: Rental ban on all properties with G energy label
    • January 1, 2028: Rental ban on all properties with F energy label
    • January 1, 2034: Rental ban on all properties with E energy label

    Now here’s what this is thought to mean for overall rental supply:

    By 2028, 5.2mn homes rated F and G, or 17 per cent of total housing stock, will become ineligible for rental. By 2034, all E properties will also be excluded, amounting to about 40 per cent of homes.

    This raises an interesting question: Is it more important to have energy-efficient homes or to have greater overall supply? Now obviously the goal and ideal scenario is both; lots of affordable homes that are also energy efficient. And presumably, one of the objectives of this rental ban is to stick/carrot owners into investing in energy measures. But it’s not exactly obvious as to how many owners will be able to renovate their homes in time, and how many homes will become ineligible for rent. This will be an interesting policy to watch as it plays out.

  • Digitally twinning our cities

    Many of you have probably heard of the concept of a “digital twin.” Put simply, it is a digital representation of a physical thing. This could be a thing that already exists or, in the case of a new building, it could be a thing that you’re about to make exist.

    But there’s no reason to stop at the scale of a building. Right now, there are groups working on modeling entire cities. Sadly, in Ukraine, it is being done to document important buildings that could get destroyed. But in other places, it is being done in order to create a new kind of urban testing environment (via FT):

    “In the city, you don’t have a development environment; you only have one city. The laboratory is the place where the planners go to test. So test in a digital twin and then develop or implant in the city. That’s going to be the value.”

    The thinking is that if you combine a digital twin with good real-time urban data and AI, then you might actually be able to start testing new city building initiatives. For instance, maybe you could ask it: What would happen if we added a traffic lane, here? Would it actually help congestion or would it induce new demand?

    It’s hard to model this kind of stuff today, which is one of the reasons why there’s usually fierce debate about seemingly everything. But if we had accurate models that could tell us something close to reality, that feels like it would be a game changer for city builders.

  • Are shared e-scooters now dead?

    I first wrote about Bird, the electric scooter company, back in March 2018. At the time, they had just raised $115 million and their pitch was that they were going to solve the last-mile mobility problem. This is a real problem, and so lots of urbanist-type people, including myself, were excited. I then rode my first shared scooter in 2019 in Lisbon, and I had a ton of fun. I wrote: “Now I know what all the fuss is about.”

    But it wasn’t all puppy dogs and ice cream. People started getting annoyed by the clutter that dockless scooters were creating in our cities (see above photo). Safety also became a great concern, and so they started getting viewed as a nuisance. Toronto never allowed them (despite my insistent blog posts) and Paris — which had arguably become the scooter capital of the world — banned them in early 2023.

    Now there’s this: Bird announced this week that it has filed for bankruptcy. The once unicorn, which had its stock halted back in September because its market cap fell below $15 million for too long, needs cash. According to FT, they have about $3.25 million the bank, but they have an immediate need for $16.8 million to meet some “financial obligations” in January.

    This is maybe not unexpected. But I think the important question is: Is this an existential moment for micro-mobility and shared scooters (i.e. this is a fundamentally bad business), or is it more of a case that money used to be mostly kind of free, and now it’s not? Either way, I think there’s no question that the latter is going to cause further distress throughout 2024.

    But the question remains: Can shared scooters be a sustainable business?

    My day job is not to be a scooter analyst. But I do think that a number of things are true:

    These first and last points are important ones. I believe it’s always going to be easier to get people onto electric scooters and bikes than onto regular bikes; people will generally always choose what is easiest. At the same time, here is a company that has allegedly figured out how to offer this service profitably. Assuming these two things remain true, I think we’ll continue to find scooters in our cities.

    Photo by Gemma Evans on Unsplash

  • Canada has an existential productivity problem

    Canada has a lot going for it:

    By land mass it is the second-largest country in the world, with the longest coastline. Bookended by the vast Pacific and Atlantic oceans it has enormous trading advantages, alongside access to the largely untapped Arctic to its north. It is a net energy exporter; it has the third-largest proven oil reserves and is the fifth-largest producer of natural gas — but it also boasts large deposits of critical minerals vital to the green energy transition. And, of course, it borders the world’s largest economy.

    And yet:

    By purchasing power parity, its economy is ranked 15th globally by size, behind the likes of Turkey, Italy and Mexico. The OECD has forecast Canadian per capita gross domestic product growth up to 2060 to be the lowest among advanced nations.

    The problem:

    Poor productivity is at the heart of the country’s growth challenges. In an hour a Canadian worker produces just over 70 per cent of what an American can — that’s below the euro area and even the UK based on 2022 data. Many would have expected the resource-rich economy to benefit as globalisation powered forward, but its relative labour productivity has actually slipped since 2000.

    The solution is probably a simple one: We need to innovate, invest more in R&D, and create stronger links between research and Canadian businesses. But executing on this has proven difficult:

    Enormous efforts have been made to understand why businesses in Canada invest so much less in R&D than their counterparts in the U.S., much of Western Europe, South Korea and Japan. Is it our reliance on the export of natural resources and agricultural products? Is it reduced incentives to innovate for our heavily regulated and profitable oligopolies in sectors such as banking and telecommunications? Is it our decades-old reliance on incentivizing industrial R&D through federal and provincial tax credits?

    It’s hard to imagine a more important topic affecting all Canadians. So I would encourage you to read this recent opinion piece by David Naylor (president emeritus of the University of Toronto) and Stephen J. Troops (president of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research).

    It’s a balanced piece. Neither of them are arguing for “empty credentialism” or for research that remains in academia. What matters is what we do with the work that our smartest minds are doing. And the overarching point is that innovative research needs to find demand within Canadian businesses.

    Right now, we’re very bad at this. That needs to change.

    Chart: Globe and Mail

  • Why is housing viewed so differently?

    Here is a study by three researchers out of California that asked Americans to predict the impact of a supply shock on various things, such as durable goods, commodities, labor, trade, and yes, housing.

    For basically all of these items, people tended to answer correctly. Usually by a factor of at least two to one. In other words, when asked what reducing the supply of new cars would do to the prices of used cars, the majority of people responded saying that it would lead to an increase in prices.

    However, when asked about the impact of a 10% increase in housing supply, about 40% said that it would cause prices and rents to rise. Only about a third believed they would fall (the correct answer). This is fascinating because it shows that housing seems to be an outlier. Most people don’t have the same intuitive sense.

    Why is this? Well, one commonly held belief is that building market-rate housing leads to gentrification, and that this ultimately leads to the displacement of existing residents. This might have been why some people responded saying that new housing will cause an increase in prices and rents. It’ll lead to all housing going up.

    However, there’s research to support that this isn’t the case. The problem isn’t outward displacement following new market-rate housing. The greatest driver of gentrification is actually “exclusionary displacement”, which is the inability of people to move into areas because of a lack of housing. (This study was based on 2010-2014 housing data from the UK.)

    The thing about housing supply is that it relieves pressure across the entire market. Instead of a high-income person buying an old home to renovate (and causing outward displacement), they can instead choose to buy a new home (and not cause any outward displacement).

    By doing this, they also leave behind a home that can then be absorbed by lower earners. One US study found that for every 100 new market-rate homes that are built, somewhere between 45 and 70 people move out of a below-median income neighborhood.

    It is for reasons like these that, time and time again, increased housing supply has been shown to moderate home prices and rents (see above regarding Minneapolis and the Midwest as a whole). So if you’re worried about the cost of housing, the answer is to build more. And if you’re worried about gentrification, the answer is also to build more.

    Our intuitions are telling us that this is true for most things. But for whatever reason, housing feels different. It’s not, though.

    Source: The charts and studies in this post are from this great FT article by John Burn-Murdoch.

  • Cheap mortgages are something to hang onto

    If you really need a new home, then I guess this makes sense:

    We thought rising mortgage rates would crush the homebuilders, and bet against Pulte in the FT stockpicking contest. But the exact opposite happened: high rates froze the existing house market by giving homeowners a huge incentive not to move — their irreplaceable cheap mortgages. That left new homes as almost the only game in town for anyone who really needs to buy a home. Pulte has been one of the best- performing stocks in the S&P 500. Never pick stocks, even in a stupid stockpicking contest, on the basis of superficial research.

    And here’s a chart that supports this argument (new homes as a % of total single-family home inventory, including resales):

    It’s an interesting nuance.

    But it’s certainly a different story here in Toronto with new condominium sales. According to Urbanation, in the first half of this year, the Greater Toronto Area sold 6,727 new condominium homes. This is down 59% compared to 2022, and represents the slowest first six months in a decade.

    In this case, higher rates have dramatically slowed the market.

  • Toward the childless city

    There is a common narrative that, when it comes time to start a family and have kids, you should probably consider moving to the suburbs. Sure, you’ll have a painful commute, but you’ll get more space for your money, and maybe you’ll end up with better kids.

    I don’t know, obviously not everyone agrees with this. I certainly don’t.

    But it is something that commonly happens and, in many cities, it is now happening more often. Here is a map from the Centre for London showing the change in the proportion of households with at least one dependent child from 2001 to 2021:

    A darker borough means that it lost households with at least one child. And a lighter borough means that it gained more kids. Why this is concerning is that it means the trendline is toward more, and not less, childless cities. Here’s an excerpt from a recent FT article:

    A future with dwindling numbers of children is one many cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC, are grappling with. In Hong Kong, for every adult over 65 there are, to put it crudely, 0.7 children, and in Tokyo it is even fewer (0.5).

    Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. And we know the main drivers:

    Randal Cremer is one of several planned primary school closures and mergers in inner London triggered by low birth rates, families moving away because of expensive childcare, Brexit, and parents re-evaluating their lives during the pandemic. The biggest factor, says Riley, is that “housing is just becoming unaffordable”. Philip Glanville, mayor of Hackney, calls it “the acute affordability crisis”.

    So how do we start to solve this? Here are a few ideas that we recently talked about on the blog, but it is by no means an exhaustive list. In my opinion, this is a problematic trend that deserves a lot more attention. Because cities are at their best when they work for everyone — from the young to the old.