Tag: housing supply

• Interest rates are expected to start coming down this summer

  

  Last week was “forum week” in Toronto. (That is, it was the Toronto Real Estate Forum.) And as is the case every year, Benjamin Tal, deputy chief economist of CIBC, opened up the event with his usual macro view of the world. For those of you who missed it (as I did), here are some of his key points (via RENX):

  • The Bank of Canada’s overnight rate will ultimately/likely settle into the 2.75-3% range (currently it sits at 5%). He expects rates to start coming down this summer.
  • Inflation is down, but we’re not yet at the 2% target. The “last mile” is always the toughest.
  • But as we know, the BofC will take a recession over high inflation, any day.
  • The mortgage market has fallen faster than in the early 90s recession. Tal said that the residential real estate market in Canada is right now facing “the biggest test” since then.
  • Canada is in what he calls a “per capita recession”. But for the million or so immigrants that the country accepted over the last year, we’d be in a full-blown official recession.
  • Finally, he called this correction in the housing market both “real” and “healthy”; he spoke about normalcy returning in 1-2 years; and he posited that the market will be “crazy” when it does return because of a supply deficit.

  This last point is an important one. New housing supply is mostly shut off right now. I say mostly because there are obviously still projects under construction, and there have been and there will continue to be some successful launches. But by and large, most developers are waiting right now, principally because the absorption isn’t there. They have no other choice.

  But Canada continues to grow. People from around the world continue to want to move here. And there continues to be a need for a lot more new housing. So when the market does return — and it, of course, will — there is going to be a supply-demand imbalance. And as is always the case in real estate, there will be a lag in responding to this imbalance.

  This is what Tal means by “crazy”.

  Photo by Wiktor Karkocha on Unsplash

  2023.12.03

• Why your city is still struggling to build missing middle housing

  About Here makes excellent videos about cities. Here’s their latest about missing middle housing:

  In my view, there are two key takeaways.

  The first is that cities need to spend way more time understanding the economics of missing middle housing. As Uytae Lee says in the video, our land use policies need to respond to real math and overall financial viability.

  The second is that there’s real potential here. Uytae gives the example of Auckland which, according to the video, managed to deliver 20,000 new missing middle homes in a 5-year time period.

  This is meaningful! And, it is suggested that this has reduced rents in the city by somewhere between 13-35% compared to where they might have gone had this new housing not been built.

  As I’ve said many times before on the blog, the devil is in the details. The headline may sound really great that some city is now allowing 4 or 6 homes on every single-family lot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that any new homes will actually be built.

  It’s important we change that.

  P.S. Thanks to Michael Geller for sharing this video with me.

  2023.11.24

• The Housing Supply Challenge

  Back in 2019, Canada’s federal budget allocated $300 million toward something known as The Housing Supply Challenge. The overarching objective was, and still is, to reduce the barriers to housing supply and affordability, and the approach has been to find solutions through a series of “challenges”. So far, they — they being the CMHC Housing Supply Team — have completed four rounds. And right now, they are on round five. This is the challenge:

  Increase the adoption of system-level solutions that transform Canada’s ability to produce more community and market housing.

  This fifth round represents $65 million of the $300 million total budget. Meaning that $65 million will be awarded to groups and solutions that have the potential to accomplish the above. The funding will be distributed in three stages. First to 20 foundational solutions ($1 million per solution), then to 10 next-level solutions ($3 million per solution), and finally to 3 game-changing solutions ($5 million per solution).

  If you have a solution (i.e. something that can be executed on), I would encourage you to check out their site. And if you’d like to apply, you have until December 18, 2023.

  2023.11.23

• A lot less new housing

  During COVID, every developer was terrified that their costs were going to run way from them. According to this recent Globe and Mail article, residential building costs increased 55% since 2020. At the same time, city fees were being increased and some people, for whatever reason, believed this would not have an impact on home prices. Developers will always seek to profit maximize and charge whatever the market will bear, so why bother trying to reduce costs? This is/was one school of thought.

  Despite this cost fear, the market managed to keep up for a period of time. Capital was cheap, as we all know. And that kept things going, until it was no longer the case. According to the same Globe article, there are 83 residential projects and 28,428 homes that have not launched (sales) over the last two years in the Greater Toronto Area because of market conditions. This year alone, the number is estimated at 14,000 homes. So supply has fallen off, and that’s because demand and buying power have fallen off.

  But let’s think of this in economics terms. Price and quantity demanded are usually inversely correlated. Meaning, if the price of something goes up, demand will go down. And if the price of something goes down, demand will go up. So in theory, there are still prices that will get 28,428 people excited to buy a new home. I mean, if I were to list a condo in downtown Toronto for $500 psf right now, I’m pretty sure that most with the means would jump at the opportunity.

  The problem is that whatever these prices are, they are largely beneath the floor price of where most developers can build to today. Developers weren’t bluffing, costs really are too high now. And when this happens, the answer is simple: you can’t build. A new equilibrium will eventually be found. But in the short-term, we should all expect new housing supply to remain limited. And because there’s always a lag with real estate, the effects of this shortage will be felt in the years to come.

  2023.11.01

• Higher development charges, less federal money

  

  Metro Vancouver, which includes the City of Vancouver and 20 other municipalities, is proposing to increase its development cost charges (DCC):

  Metro Vancouver is proposing to increase DCCs by roughly $23,000 per new single-family home; $21,000 per new townhome; and $14,000 per new apartment. For example, fees for a townhouse in Vancouver will rise from $10,027 today to $30,861 by 2027.

  In response to this, federal housing minister, Sean Fraser, has just pulled $138 million in funding that was intended to accelerate housing permits and new affordable housing projects in Surrey and Burnaby.

  This makes some sense. Because it is pretty weird to say, “Hey, we need more affordable housing. Give us some money for this and, while you do that, we’re also going increase the cost of building new housing.”

  Of course, this is the whole growth-should-pay-for-growth mantra. And supposedly, there’s growth-related infrastructure that needs to be built.

  To be fair, Metro Vancouver is also proposing to increase its property taxes: 12% in the first year, 11% for the next two years, and then 5% for the next three years. So this is not all going onto new supply.

  I don’t know enough about the finances of Metro Vancouver to comment on these numbers specifically, but I do think it’s important that policy makers understand what the current market environment means for new housing.

  It is difficult, and in many cases impossible, to underwrite new housing projects today. Which means that even if all fees and charges were to remain unchanged, we are going to see a decrease in new housing supply.

  Photo by Matt Wang on Unsplash

  2023.10.29

• The cost of slowing down housing

  Urbanist Alain Bertaud — who is author of Order without Design — was recently in Vancouver for a talk about planning and housing matters.

  One of the things that he argued, according to The Hub, was that Vancouver “cannot complain about high housing prices and, at the same time, drastically limit the amount of land available [for development].”

  This should be an obvious thing. But then again, many people seem to believe that housing follows its own unique set of rules when it comes to supply and demand. So let’s look at some basic math to illustrate what it means to, not even stop or limit development, but just slow it down a little.

  Consider a development site that yields 300,000 sf of gross floor area. If I were to pick a number out of the air and apply a land price of $175 per buildable square foot, this is a site worth $52.5 million.

  In today’s environment, a land or acquisition loan for a site like this might come with a 50% LTV and an interest rate of 10%. What this means is that in a simple interest-only scenario, the annual debt service on this loan would be around $2.6 million ($52.5 million x 50% x 10%).

  Now let’s think of this on a per suite basis. Assuming an efficiency of 80%, 300,000 sf of GFA might equal 240,000 sf of saleable/livable area. Divide that by an average suite size of 625 sf, and you end up with 384 new homes on this piece of land.

  If you now divide the debt service by this many homes, you get to an annual land loan debt service cost of approximately $6.7k per home. This means that if it takes two years to start construction (and take out the land loan), that’s about $13.5k of land interest costs per home.

  Of course, if the approvals process takes even longer, this cost goes up. Let’s say that it gets decided that a “community working group” should be formed in order to further consult the community on the impacts of this proposed development.

  If this adds another year to the timeline, you now have an over $20k bill per home just to cover the land loan interest. And this does not just get magically “absorbed”, it needs to be added to the cost of the new home.

  This also does not include the cost of the actual construction loan, or any of the other hundreds of costs associated with building new housing.

  Obviously this is one of the costs of doing business. It is what developers sign up for when they look to build new housing. But I think it’s important to remember that limiting development, or even just slowing it, has real financial implications: it makes housing more expensive than it needs to be.

  2023.10.08

• 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.

  2023.09.16

• Montreal’s Diverse Metropolis policy has delivered exactly zero affordable homes

  Montreal has a bylaw that came into effect on April 1, 2021 and that requires developers to contribute to the city’s supply of social, affordable, and family housing. (All three of these have their own definition.)

  Developers can meet this requirement in a number of different ways:

  • They can build the social, affordable, and/or family housing
  • They can contribute land or a building
  • Or they can pay cash-in-lieu

  Usually, I think of inclusionary zoning as being the first of these three bullet points: a hard requirement to build a certain amount of non-market housing. That is not an absolute requirement here, and so I see this policy as being IZ lite.

  Since the bylaw came into force, there have been approximately 150 new projects by private developers in Montreal, according to this CBC article. That has resulted in about 7,100 new market-rate homes. At the same time, it has resulted in exactly zero non-market homes.

  From what I can tell from the article, every single developer has opted for option three: pay the cash-in-lieu instead of actually building the housing. Supposedly this has produced about $24.5 million in new fees, which sounds like a lot. But if you divide it by 7,100 homes, it isn’t all that much: just under $3,500 for each new home.

  So what is clear is that this is the least expensive option. That’s why everybody is choosing it. If the fee was significantly higher and it was cheaper to just build the social/affordable/family housing, then every developer would just do that. This is how development pro formas work.

  But at the end of the day, we are still taxing new housing and new home consumers for the purpose of trying to create a smidgen of more affordable housing. And this has never sat well with me, especially considering that there are plenty of other things that we could be doing to make new housing more affordable for everyone.

  2023.08.21

• A worsening housing shortage is expected

  Last month we spoke about how our current economic environment is going to negatively impact housing supply in the short-term. Now here’s some further evidence for this argument (via Bloomberg):

  “As rates started ticking up, the faucet started to turn off,” says Jonathan Gertman, senior vice president for development at the NRP Group, one of the largest multifamily housing developers in the country. “The number of projects starting this year already has been cut significantly. Anything that started in 2022, in most of the country, comes online 18 to 24 months later. So by the middle of 2025, you see that new supply start to go down significantly.”

  This is also being reflected in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan applications for new multi-family housing:

  Or put another way: FHA multifamily loan applications are on track to total as much as $18 billion for FY 2023, compared with $29 billion for FY 2022, $51 billion for FY 2021 and $45 billion for FY 2020.

  The above article is specifically talking about a looming affordable housing shortage. But these exact same headwinds are also impacting new market-rate housing. Of course, there’s always a lag when it comes to development. So it’ll likely be a few years until we really feel the impacts.

  2023.07.27

• The neutral rate and housing supply

  Below are two interesting excerpts from this recent Globe and Mail interview with Tiff Macklem (the current governor of the Bank of Canada of the former dean of the Rotman School).

  The first has to do with where he believes the “neutral rate” will be in the foreseeable future. He believes it will be higher than where it has been in the past:

  We have different models we use to estimate the neutral rate [the central bank’s estimate of where its policy rate would settle if the bank were neither trying to stimulate nor restraining the economy]. … Those models, based on the data we have, still suggest a neutral rate in the range of 2 to 3 per cent.

  When we look forward, and we look at a number of the forces, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is going to be higher than that … [rather] than lower than that. We don’t have that data yet. But there are a number of factors.

  More people are retiring. The labour market looks like it could be sort of structurally tighter going forward. Globalization has at least stalled, if not reversed. That could create more cost pressures. We’re going to need a lot of new investment in cleaner technologies if we’re going to meet our emissions-reduction targets. When I say ‘we,’ it’s the world – so that’s going to affect global real interest rates.

  So when you look forward, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is higher, not lower. And the message is that households, businesses, governments, the financial system, they need to be prepared for that possibility.

  The second is about his view on Canadian housing:

  The fundamental issue in the housing market, and this has been an issue in Canada for 10 years, at least, is structurally the demand for housing is growing faster than the supply. And so yes, interest rates go up, the housing market will slow. But it’s only going to slow so much because there is a sort of structural shortage of supply relative to demand.

  I think what you’re seeing is that with supply growing less than demand, the housing market has started to tick back up, housing prices have started to tick back up. That’s something we need to take into account in monetary policy. But we’re not targeting the housing market. We have one target: CPI inflation.

  These two forces are opposing ones. Higher rates create downward pressure on home prices. But, as we all know, a structural housing supply problem does the opposite. Where these two forces balance out is anybody’s guess. But as Tiff mentions above, his concern is not home prices; it is inflation.

  I am not an economist, but my view is that the broader real estate market is still going through its reset. There will be more pain and less housing supply overall in the short-term. Risk and leverage are still being unwound and that takes time. It also sucks.

  Because of this, I think if you ask most people today, they will likely tell you to wait: “We haven’t yet hit the bottom of the market.” This is likely true. But I have zero ability to time the bottom of a market. And at the same time, the future does feel a lot more knowable compared to a year ago.

  My philosophy is more akin to what I blogged about earlier in the week: If it’s cheap, if the thesis is sound, and if you have the ability to think long-term, then these downturns are when you want to buy. And that is how I’m starting to feel about things right now. This includes everything from real estate to NFTs.

  Disclaimer: This is not investment advice.

  2023.07.15