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.
The sentiment around downtown/urban condos has completely changed over the last month or so. This is happening in Toronto and, from what I hear, it’s happening in many other cities as well. Carolyn Ireland published an article in the Globe and Mail today called, “For downtown Toronto condos, the worm has turned.”
But I can also speak to what we (and our colleagues in the industry) are seeing on the ground. A sense of urgency has returned. Prices are starting to push upward. And people are buying. The last few weeks have also seen some very successful condo launches in the city including 8 Wellesley by CentreCourt Developments. I can’t remember if they sold out in 7 minutes or 7.5 minutes.
None of this is necessarily surprising. Interest rates are low. The US is doing a good job at vaccinating its people. Single-family home prices have exploded over the last year (pushing buyers toward condos). And there seems to be an emerging view that the second half of this year is going to be pretty good. (This was my view at the beginning of the year and stand behind that position.)
Today was a beautiful spring-like day in Toronto. I was out for a site visit this morning and the sidewalks were filled with people milling about and enjoying the sunshine. City life isn’t going anywhere my friends. Long live the city.
There was a good discussion on Twitter this morning about small-scale commercial uses in residential neighborhoods, like the coffee shop shown above on Shaw Street. In most residential neighborhoods in Toronto, this kind of commercial activity is not permitted if you were to try and initiate it today. The small convenience stores and bodegas that remain are often legal non-conforming uses. And while generally considered desirable in their current confirm, if you were to try and make a change, you could get caught in some municipal red tape where your grandfathered status suddenly no longer applies.
But let’s consider the other side of this argument for a minute. It’s easy to look at a great and well-designed neighborhood coffee shop like this one and say to yourself that it is obviously a desirable use and that we should be encouraging more of them in our residential neighborhoods. But what if it was a noisy late-night bar, a nail salon, or a massage parlor? Would your opinion change? Would it change if you were an immediate neighbor? It is perhaps easy to see why the fear of the things we don’t want has led us to sterilize our neighborhoods to the point where we no longer allow the things that we may in fact want.
And herein lies the immense frustration that many of us have with our land use policies. There are countless examples of obviously desirable uses and built forms that are exceedingly difficult to execute on because of the barriers that we ourselves have put in place. Whether it’s a cool neighborhood coffee shop or new affordable housing, there are far too many examples of these sorts of projects being stuck in some kind of planning ether — sometimes for decades. We say and know that we want these things, but then it is frequently the case that we can’t get out of the way so that they can actually happen.
The Globe and Mail published this headline today: “Developers building more small condos, despite people clamoring for more space.” It’s behind a paywall and so some of you may not have read it. But the data looks something like this. Of all the new condo project launches that happened this year in Toronto, studios and one-bedroom suites accounted for 61% of all new inventory, according to Urbanation. This is a higher percentage than what the market saw in 2019 and 2018, and this is despite the fact that many/most people are still working from home and would probably appreciate a bit more space.
The short answer as to why this is happening is affordability. For years I have been clamoring for a dual aspect oceanfront penthouse on Miami Beach, but that time hasn’t come for me yet. Things cost money. And the downward pressure on unit sizes is a direct result of developers trying to ensure that their inventory is within the reach reach of buyers (there’s a sweet spot somewhere in the range of $500-700k right now). Developers are heavily incentivized to build what sells and rents, both quickly and at the highest price. That tends to be smaller units, especially early on.
Where this goes in the future is anybody’s guess. But with the dramatic price increases that we have seen on the low-rise side of the market, I suspect that we’ll see a subsequent surge in demand for condos — maybe even larger condos.
One, new low-rise lot sizes seem to be shrinking and that’s probably a normal market outcome. Similar to the way in which average unit sizes have been generally coming down for mid-rise and high-rise product, it is a way to maintain some semblance of affordability in the face of ever-rising costs.
The average price of a new condo in the City of Toronto last quarter was nearly $1,300 psf. That means that if you had an average unit size of 1,000 square feet, you’d have an average selling price of $1.3 million (to state the obvious). Not everyone can afford this ticket price, and so there’s downward pressure on unit sizes in order to get the face prices down.
Two, developer margins aren’t increasing just because home prices have been going up. At best, they’ve remained constant (Shane provides a quantitative example in his article). But there are also many cases where margins are getting squeezed as a result of rising costs.
All of this to say that I think we can continue to expect downward pressure on lot sizes and unit sizes as the Toronto region continues to grow.
A new report was just published by Urbanation and the Federation of Rental-Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) arguing that the Greater Toronto Area is undersupplying rental housing to the tune of about 20,000 units per year. This number considers both purpose-built rental housing and condominiums that are purchased by investors and later rented out. (Shane Dingman also covered the report in this recent Globe and Mail article.)
These findings probably won’t come as a surprise to a lot of you. It is pretty common for most big/growing cities to operate with a perpetual housing supply deficit. With all of the barriers to development, it’s often impossible to keep pace with demand. This naturally creates upward pressure on pricing. But the other factor that cannot be ignored is development costs. How much does it cost to actually deliver new supply?
Here’s an excerpt from the report that speaks to this consideration:
While the results of the infill development potential exercise are encouraging, the economics of intensifying these sites may be too difficult for owners to ultimately move them forward in many cases even with a zero land cost, as achievable rents outside of Central Toronto are often not high enough to offset development and operating costs.
It’s also something that we’ve talked about many times before on the blog. Even with free land, there are going to be countless sites and neighborhoods where it does not make economic sense to build anything new: development costs > potential revenues. And so to build, somebody is going to have to pay. Either the costs need to be subsidized or the revenues needs to be topped up somehow. Otherwise, supply = 0.
If you’re facing a deficit of 20,000 units per year, this seems like something you may want to consider. How might we increase supply? And how might we increase the supply of affordable housing? Many, including some of the folks interviewed in Shane’s Globe and Mail article, believe that inclusionary zoning is one such solution. Force new developments to deliver a certain percentage of affordable units (kind of like forcing restaurants to offer up 5-10% of their tables at a loss).
But again, I think it’s important to remember that whenever costs exceed revenues, somebody is going to have to pay for that shortfall, otherwise supply = 0. Something has to give, whether that be reduced costs, greater density, or higher rents on the remaining market rate units. I think part of the allure of inclusionary zoning is that it creates the allusion of a free lunch. But here’s the thing: everything has a cost.
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.
This week, Alex Bozikovic (of the Globe and Mail) dropped the news that a new supertall by Herzog & de Meuron is being planned for the northwest corner of Bay and Bloor here in Toronto. The developers are Kroonenberg Group and ProWinko, both of which are based / have their roots in the Netherlands. At 87 storeys and 324 meters, it would be the tallest building in Canada if it were built today. The proposal includes retail, office, and residential uses.
The first thing that everybody is talking about is the tower’s slenderness ratio (the upper floors are said to be about 7,300 square feet). I’m not a structural engineer, but the structural engineers that I do know are telling me that this tower will almost certainly require a tuned mass damper at the top of the building for lateral stiffness. The tower is very narrow in its east-west direction (see below) and so it will perform as a kind of “sail” in the wind. But as New York and other cities have shown us, this can be done.
Another feature of this building is its double skin facade. As far as I know, this would be the first residential building in Toronto to have one (please correct me if I’m wrong). In fact, the only building that I can think of off the top of my head is the Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto by Behnisch Architekten and architectsAlliance. (For the record, and as far as I know, I am not related to the donor for this building — but what a great last name.)
Usually the idea behind a double skin facade is to create an air cavity between both skins and then ventilate it. To reduce cooling loads in the summer, shading devices are also usually added within this air cavity. The system works by trapping and then extracting solar heat gain before it reaches the inside of the building. Engineers and real architects tell me that this generally works a lot better than a typical interior blind, because at that point you’ve already let a lot of the heat inside of your conditioned space.
I am a big fan of ambition. And this project is certainly ambitious. For more about the proposal, check out the Globe and Mail.
Update: This project is being done in collaboration with Quadrangle Architects of Toronto.
Just over a month ago, as North America was beginning its lockdown, the Europeans were the ones showing us how to stay sane in quarantine through balcony orchestras and viral internet videos. Now we’re looking to them for how best to reopen the economy and minimize the number of fits and starts.
This morning Spain recorded its lowest daily death rate from the coronavirus. It is beginning to prepare for a phased relaxation of its lockdown rules. Things will not return to normal overnight. [Financial Times]
Spain allowed construction activity and manufacturing to resume this past week. As a reminder, Spain’s strict lockdown started on March 14. [New York Times]
Bookstores are open in Venice, but that’s about it. Customers have to enter one at a time, or schedule an appointment. Hotels, restaurants, and cafes remain shuttered. It is believed that at least 1/6th of all Italian restaurants and bars will not survive. Reopening is not happening uniformly across Italy’s 20 regions. [Wall Street Journal]
Last week, Denmark became the first country in the Western world to reopen elementary schools. The desks are far apart and teaching outside is being maximized, but some/many are concerned that this is too soon. Are we prioritizing the economy (i.e. free up the parents) over the health of our children? [New York Times]
The Czech Republic currently has one of the lowest number of cases on the continent. But hardware stores and bike shops are some of the only nonessential businesses that are allowed to be open. The Easter weekend saw an over 60% increase in year-over-year sales. Biking is something to do right now. [Wall Street Journal]
On Monday, the lockdown will be further relaxed by the Czech government. Weddings of up to 10 people will start to be allowed. Gyms are expected to open on May 11, but their change rooms will remain closed. (I’m surprised by this one.) Malls, hotels, and indoor restaurants aren’t expected to reopen until June 8 at the earliest. Should the number of new daily cases exceed 400 going forward, the government has said it will reimpose a lockdown. [Wall Street Journal]
The UK is not yet considering a relaxation of its lockdown. As of Sunday, the situation remains “deeply worrying.” The UK currently has the 5th highest national death toll. [Globe and Mail]
On April 13, Emmanuel Macron announced that France would begin a phased reopening of its economy — schools and some businesses — starting on May 11. This is a unique approach. He gave a firm date, well into the future. What if this doesn’t make sense when the time comes? Clearly the government felt that the psychological benefits of a firm date outweighed the potential risks. Minimize uncertainty during an uncertain time. [Le Monde]
Lots of discussion around the porosity of borders. Logically, there’s a view that unless there’s a common strategy, it’s better to keep borders closed. But what are the economic implications of doing that? [New York Times]
It is by turns an exhilarating and depressing narrative: Canada, in this book, appears as a country that announced itself on the world stage in the 1960s and 1970s with incredible ambition but, since then, has retreated toward the mean.
It is potentially troubling not only because I believe in the value of good design, but because I believe that architecture embodies the ethos and cultural context in which it was created.
And so if you believe that our architectural ambitions have retreated toward mediocrity, you might also surmise that our overall level of ambition has retreated toward the same.
Earlier today, the Conservative Party of Canada made the following housing policy announcement. If elected this fall, they would (copied verbatim from here):
Fix the mortgage stress test to ensure that first-time homebuyers aren’t unnecessarily prevented from accessing mortgages and work with OFSI to remove the stress test from mortgage renewals to give homeowners more options.
Increase amortization periods on insured mortgages to 30 years for first-time homebuyers to lower monthly payments.
Launch an inquiry into money laundering in the real estate sector and work with our industry partners to root out corrupt practices that inflate housing prices.
Make surplus federal real estate available for development to increase the supply of housing.
There aren’t a lot of details here, but Andrew Scheer did say that his party would eliminate the financing “stress test” for all mortgage renewals. Currently, you’re only exempt if you renew with your existing lender.
As Rob Carrick points out, this is a pretty sensible move. (Though he doesn’t agree with “fixing” the stress test.) The current situation gives the incumbent lender almost monopolistic power if the borrower can’t meet the stress test and is unable to shop around for a better rate.
At the same time, we know that the price of a highly levered asset tends to correlate with financing ability. So depending on what serves you better, you may be either concerned or delighted that this increased buying power could spur further housing consumption/appreciation.
