Tag: housing affordability

• How Singapore fixed its housing problem

  There are a number of affordable housing plans being thrown around in Toronto right now given that we have a municipal election coming up this fall. 

  From what I have read, the plans are largely centered around surplus and/or available public land and possibly some subsidies. 

  These subsidies are very important because the money has to come from somewhere. This is often overlooked.

  In light of these debates, I thought I would share a short Bloomberg video that my friend Evgeny shared with me this morning all the way from Tokyo.

  The video is about how Singapore fixed its housing problem. If you can’t see it embedded below, click here.

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjPgNBNeLU?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  It strikes me as being very Singaporean.

  2018.08.31

• Land use restrictions and upward mobility

  Throughout US history, economic growth has typically spurred an “enormous reallocation of population.” Here is a graph from a recent New York Times article called: What Happened to the American Boomtown?

  

  The argument, here, is that restrictions on development have made it so that the most prosperous cities are actually the slowest growing cities in terms of population. Here is a chart, from the same article, comparing population growth to average annual pay:

  

  And here is an excerpt:

  But these productive places aren’t growing as fast now as economists believe they should — and as they would if they didn’t impose so many obstacles on new development. Since the 1970s, land use restrictions have multiplied in coastal metros, making it harder to build in, say, San Jose, Calif., than in Phoenix. And the politics of development have become tense, too. In the Boston suburbs, the Bay Area, Brooklyn and Washington, people who already live there have balked at new housing for people who don’t.

  We often talk about the impact of land use restrictions on supply and overall housing affordability. But here is an argument that it could also be impacting upward mobility.

  2017.12.08

• Supply-side toolkit for greater housing affordability

  

  McKinsey Global Institute just published a “supply-side toolkit” for cities struggling with housing affordability. This seems to be every successful city.

  The article includes a long list of potential tools. Some of them you may agree with. And others you may disagree with. But I am sure that many of them will be familiar to you. One of the tools in the toolkit is accessory dwelling units.

  Of course, the overarching theme is that housing supply has not and is not keeping pace with housing demand:

  California, for instance, added 544,000 households but only 467,000 net housing units from 2009 to 2014. Its cumulative housing shortfall has expanded to two million units.

  Another one of the tools in the toolkit is “overcoming NIMBYism.” Here is an excerpt:

  People who come to a city to work need to be able to find an affordable place to live there. But the voices of existing homeowners who want to preserve the status quo often drown out those of newcomers, young adults, low-income service workers, and renters who need more housing. After a 2009 audit found that neighborhood councils were not representative of the city’s broader population, Seattle replaced these bodies with a central Community Involvement Commission that includes mayoral and council appointees chosen to represent a broader set of stakeholders.

  I am intrigued by Seattle’s move to create a central body and a new approach to public engagement – one that moves away from local district-councils. However, it appears that this Community Involvement Commission is still very much in its infancy.

  If any of you are familiar with the Seattle market, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on it in the comment section below. I am, however, going to spend some time reading up on it.

  For the full toolkit, click here.

  Photo by Sarah Brink on Unsplash

  2017.10.16

• The year of the condo

  Over the past 5 years or so, real estate headlines in the Greater Toronto Area have often focused on the rapid appreciation of low-rise housing. High-rise housing simply wasn’t appreciating at the same rate – at least in aggregate terms.

  But 2017 has brought a different story. 

  If you look at BILD’s “New Homes Monthly Market Report” (data provided by Altus Group as of July 2017), you can see that high-rise pricing is now on a similar trajectory to low-rise pricing.

  Here is that graph:

  

  This sharp uptick in pricing is also apparent when you look at the average price per square foot of new high-rise inventory. As of July, it was $764 psf across the GTA. See below.

  At the same time, average unit sizes have also jumped up to 871 square feet. So not only are new high-rise homes becoming more expensive on a normalized basis, they are also getting bigger, which further increases prices.

  

  I recognize that we’re only seeing data up to the end of July, but, from the looks of it, 2017 is shaping up to be an extraordinary year for the condo.

  Of course, part of the reason this is happening is because remaining inventory for both low-rise and high-rise product is hitting 10-year lows. We’re back to the topic of supply.

  If you’re curious how some of these numbers have changed from the month prior (June 2017), check out this post.

  2017.08.25

• Less is more

  The Wall Street Journal recently asked: Venice Beach Is a Hot Place to Live, So Why Is Its Housing Supply Shrinking? 

  According to Issi Romem, chief economist at BuildZoom, it’s because Venice Beach is the toughest place in America to build housing.

  Here are some numbers from the WSJ:

  “The Venice Beach population is shrinking even as the local economy has boomed. The neighborhood had about 27,000 residents in 2015, about 3,800 fewer than in 2000, according to U.S. Census data. At the same time, the ZIP Code has added 4,000 new jobs, according to Jed Kolko, chief economist at employment website Indeed.”

  And here is a chart that speaks to the relationship between housing prices and housing supply:

  

  Housing supply, alone, isn’t going to solve all of our problems. But it certainly matters. Also, what’s up with Chicago?

  2017.07.29

• Laneway housing represents 19% of all new single family and two family dwellings in Vancouver

  One of the criticisms surrounding laneway housing is that – while great – there is no way for this housing typology to have a meaningful impact on the overall housing supply equation.

  I’ve previously written about the impact of laneway housing in Vancouver. But I wanted to revisit some of the data following this tweet by GRIDS Vancouver, where they link to a spreadsheet they prepared using the City of Vancouver’s building permit data.

  Laneway housing was first allowed in Vancouver in 2009. In that first year, only 18 building permits were issued. But since then the number has grown steadily. In 2014, they hit 377. And in 2015 (up to September), they hit 360. So for the full year, it is highly likely they will show yet another year-over-year increase.

  Since laneway houses became permissible (and up to September 2015), a total of 1,885 building permits have been issued. During this same time period, 8,239 permits were issued for other low-rise housing, up to and including duplexes. This includes single family dwellings, single family dwellings with a secondary suite, and two family dwellings.

  So for a period of almost 8 years, laneway houses have represented on average 19% of all new single family and two family dwellings in Vancouver. If you include low-rise multifamily product into this equation (more than 2 units, but 3 storeys or less ), the percentage is still slightly above 17%. This is something. It’s not everything, but it is certainly something. 

  More conventional low-rise housing still represents a greater number and, of course, most of the new supply is coming in the form of condos, apartments and other higher density housing. But 17-19% are still meaningful numbers when part of the affordability problem is clearly a lack of supply.

  It is for reasons such as these that I, along with many others, want to bring laneway housing Toronto. If you feel similarly, please consider supporting my prototype project by signing your name here.

  Update: A previous version of this post stated that 19% of all new low-rise housing in Vancouver had become laneway housing. This number was calculated on all low-rise housing up to and including duplexes, but excluded low-rise multifamily product. The above post has been updated to lend more precision to my understanding of the data.

  2017.06.24

• Is radical rezoning the solution to gentrification and displacement?

  

  “If I meet one more anti-gentrification activist who moved to Seattle ten minutes ago, I shall scream.” –Dan Savage

  So it’s not just developers who are frustrated by the many paradoxical desires that we have of cities. We are concerned about housing affordability and we want to minimize displacement, but we do things that restrict new supply and put increasing pressure on our existing housing stock. 

  Below is another excerpt from Dan Savage. It’s from an article called: Doing Something Real About Gentrification and Displacement. Dan writes a sex-advice column, but clearly also feels passionate about urban issues. When he talks about “this city” he’s talking about Seattle.

  “Housing scarcity—exacerbated by the ridiculous amount of this city zoned for single-family housing—deserves as much blame for the displacement crisis as gentrification. More. And unlike gentrification (“a once in a lifetime tectonic shift in consumer preferences”), scarcity and single-family zoning are two things we can actually do something about. Rezone huge swaths of the city. Build more units of affordable housing, borrow the social housing model discussed in the Rick Jacobus’ piece I quote from above (“Why We Must Build”), do away with parking requirements, and—yes—let developers develop. (This is the point where someone jumps into comments to point out that I live in a big house on Capitol Hill. It’s true! And my house is worth a lot of money—a lot more than what we paid for it a dozen years ago. But the value of my house is tied to its scarcity. Want to cut the value of my property in half? Great! Join me in calling for a radical rezone of all of Capitol Hill—every single block—for multi-family housing, apartment blocks and towers. That’ll show me!)”

  His overarching point is that lots of highly-educated people with money are choosing, today, to live in urban centers. And whether we like it or not, that is going to cause gentrification. We can’t stop that. But what we can do is try and alleviate housing scarcity. 

  His other solution involves building lots of transit to address geographic isolation. I agree with him on this point and I’ve argued it before on the blog. If we can all agree that one of the issues is land/housing scarcity, then transit is certainly another way to “pull in” new supply. Though I think we need to be realistic about the level of service required to make areas desirable.

  If you have a few minutes, check out Dan Savage’s article. It’s a good and entertaining read.

  2017.05.27

• Operating at the margins

  

  I’ve been thinking about land markets as of late and so today I thought I would share a post by Toby Lloyd that I recently discovered called: Understanding and adapting the land market is key to solving our housing crisis (2014). It’s from the London School of Economics’ British Politics and Policy blog.

  His argument, as the title suggests, is that we need to dig deeper and look at how our land markets are functioning if we want to address some of the challenges facing our cities today.

  The post is obviously written from a UK perspective, but many of his points will probably ring true for a lot of you in the industry. One remark that stood out for me was his point about developers always operating at the margins:

  “The result of the land auction process is that the worst scheme, the one that offers the least to the community, the poorest quality homes, and charges the most for them, is generally the one that will happen, because this is the one that offers the most cash up front to the landowner. As a result, development is always already at the margins of viability. Even a relatively small shock can see construction grind to a halt rapidly, because there is simply not enough margin left after the landowner’s cut has come out for the developer to want to build.”

  When it comes to building, most people tend to think about the developer, the architect, and so on. But what I think many people overlook is that this entire process starts with a land input and a landowner. And the cost, availability and usability of that land input has a significant impact on everything that happens downstream.

  2017.05.18

• The 0.1%

  City Observatory recently published a post called, The 0.1 percent solution: Inclusionary zoning’s fatal scale problem. 

  I recognize the political attractiveness of this land use policy, but I’ve always been skeptical about its effectiveness. 

  Here’s an excerpt from the post:

  “While inclusionary zoning gets top mention as a preferred policy by many affordable housing advocates, there’s precious little evidence that its ever had more than a token effect on the size of the housing affordability problem in any city. In addition, because inclusionary zoning requirements essentially shift the cost of housing subsidies onto new development, they raise its cost, and likely reduce the number of units that get built–which tends to aggravate housing shortages and further accelerate prices.”

  Sadly, I think that many housing policies tend to be more about optics, than about impact. There’s rarely such thing as a free lunch.

  2017.05.13

• 16 new housing measures

  The big news today in Toronto real estate is that the province of Ontario introduced 16 new measures intended to rein in the housing market. 

  Some of the most notable measures, which many of you will have seen in the headlines, include a 15% tax on home purchases by non-residents and expanded rent control for buildings completed after 1991. Previously it only applied to older buildings. The maximum annual rent increase for existing tenants will now be capped at the rate of inflation, up to a maximum of 2.5%.

  Here’s some more information from the Globe and Mail and CBC.

  I’ve had a few people ask me to blog / comment on the above, but I haven’t yet had time to do a deep dive into the details. I would like to do that first rather than provide a knee-jerk reaction. In the meantime, I would love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.

  2017.04.20