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: housing supply

  • Most new condominiums are not owner-occupied — is that actually a bad thing?

    Here’s some data (via Jeremy Withers) explaining that a large portion — about 61% — of new condominiums built in Ontario between 2016 and 2021 were not owner-occupied. In the case of low-rise houses, the figure is lower — about 24%.

    Now, the premise of Jeremy’s tweet storm is that non-owner-occupied housing is bad and that the government should be doing more to discourage this. Simply taxing and restricting foreign buyers is not enough (and I agree that this is mostly symbolic).

    But is non-owner occupied really such a bad thing?

    First of all, non-owner occupied implies that somebody else is renting the place. I don’t think that a significant chunk of these homes are being left vacant. So isn’t the fact that somewhere around 61% of all new condominium apartments are becoming rental housing something that is potentially positive?

    One counter argument would be that these investors are bidding up new home prices and squeezing out end users. But that brings me to my second point: small-scale individual investors are a critical ingredient in the delivery of new condominium housing in Ontario.

    This point cannot be overstated.

    The lender requirement to pre-sell suites in order to obtain construction financing means that developers rely heavily on buyers who are willing to purchase many many years before occupancy. And this is generally a lot more challenging for end users, as we have talked about many times before.

    So if it weren’t for investors, I am certain that we would see a lot less new housing getting built. And in turn, that would mean a lot less new rental housing getting built.

  • Less new housing — for now

    Approving new housing is one thing. And it is an important one thing. But you also need to sell/lease and finance the project. And that is a lot more challenging in today’s environment compared to a few years ago. I think a lot of people look at our cities, see a shortage of housing, and wonder why developers don’t just build more of it. But it’s not that simple:

    “Our industry is now taking a second look at our [calculations] and saying it’s costing more to build, it’s costing more to lend,” he said. “And there is a threshold in regards to what a purchase price or sale price can be. So there’s a bit of a pause in the market right now in regards to starting construction.”

    Throughout this last development cycle and, in particular, during the pandemic, development costs increased dramatically. But the revenue side was also increasing — meaning you could sell and/or lease space for more. That kept development going. You could still successfully underwrite new projects.

    But now the cost of debt has increased and the revenue side has expectedly slowed both in terms of pricing and velocity. This dramatically changes the feasibility of new projects, which means the market is going to need time to adjust to this new environment. This, of course, will happen. But in the interim (i.e. right now), it is going to mean a lot less new housing.

    This should not come as a surprise.

  • Everybody wants a 3 bedroom condo until they see what they cost

    We have spoken about this topic — of larger family-sized suites — many times before on the blog. And my argument then, as it is now, is that the largest barrier is cost. We can talk about cultural biases (which I do think exist in North America) and, sure, we can talk about how to better design for families. But until we solve the problem of costs or until low-rise housing gets so prohibitively expensive that it tips the scales in favor of multi-family buildings, I’m not sure we’re going to see a meaningful shift.

    To be fair, it does appear that the number of families living in apartments and condominiums is increasing here in Toronto. My neighbor is one data point. However, broadly speaking, I don’t think it’s happening with the “larger family-sized suites” that most people imagine in their minds when they talk about this opportunity.

    So how do we address this? There are a number of interesting ideas in the above Twitter thread that I would encourage you to check out. Ratcheting down or eliminating development charges (and other government levies) on larger suites is one of them. But what is obvious is that this is a challenging problem to solve. So the brutally honest answer is that I don’t really know what will be most effective. But here are three potential places to start.

    As-of-right mid-rise buildings

    Remove the barriers to building more mid-rise. One irony of mid-rise buildings is that they are probably the most desirable form of multi-family housing and yet they’re the most expensive to build. A lot of this has to do with construction costs and other unavoidable diseconomies of scale, but there are other things we can do. In my view, we should target to make all mid-rise buildings fully as-of-right. This means no rezoning costs, no community meetings, and overall simpler designs. Instead, the rough process should be: buy site, work on permit drawings, and start marketing new homes.

    Growth pays for as much as possible

    Please watch this short 1-minute video:

    This is also something that we talk a lot about on this blog. But most people outside of the industry don’t think of it in this way, or they don’t care. The mantra is that “growth pays for growth”, which obviously sounds good. Tax new housing based on its impacts. But in reality this is not what’s happening. What is happening is that “growth pays for as much as possible as long as new home prices keep rising.” And it persists partially because nobody except evil developers see these large bills. But if we really want to make new housing more affordable and if we really want to encourage more families in new multi-family buildings, then we need a more equitable solution.

    Financing new family-sized homes

    The way we finance new homes impacts the kind of housing that gets built. Here in Toronto, new condominium projects generally require a certain percentage of pre-sales, because construction lenders want as much certainty as possible that they will get their money back upon completion. In theory, it also reduces the chance of overbuilding because you’ve pre-sold most/all of the homes. So there are obvious benefits to this approach. However, the problem is that you need people to now buy in advance. And oftentimes, the people buying early aren’t families who expect to need 3 bedrooms in 5.2 years. Should there be another financing solution for larger homes?

    Once again, these are just three potential places to start. But I think they’re all critically important. If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please leave them in comment section below.

  • Fourplexes are here — now what?

    The thing that we have been talking about for many months on this blog finally happened: Toronto City Council voted (18-7) in favor of allowing fourplexes as-of-right across all residential areas of the city. (If you’re curious, here is a map of which Councillors voted yes and which ones voted no. It’s not all that surprising.)

    This is a major accomplishment and milestone for Toronto. So congratulations to everyone who has been working to make this happen. But of course, now is when the rubber hits the road: Will the market actually build this new housing typology (for Toronto) at scale? Is it actually feasible?

    Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers came out this morning saying that the answer is no. These multiplexes aren’t feasible and it is “not going to solve our housing crisis or even come close.” He may be right, but I think a lot of people — myself included — are now looking closely at their feasibility.

    In fact, this morning I ran into a lender on the street — look what happens when you come into the office — that is seeing if these can be built using CMHC financing. And this is just one example of the work happening all over the city right now.

    There is also the question of scale. Small development projects are challenging. The general rule of thumb is that if you have the resources, you should build as big as you possibly can to drive economies of scale. So if these are actually feasible, who will want to build them?

    The margins on a build like this are almost certainly going to be somewhere between negative and marginally positive. But I still think there’s something to be said about being directionally right. There’s more work to be done and these policies will likely get adjusted, but I think that’s just fine as long as we’re moving forward.

    And that’s what we’re doing today.

  • The negative externalities of Toronto’s “yellow belt”

    My friend Randy Gladman, of Colliers Strategy & Consulting, recently published this important opinion piece in Urbanize Toronto. In short, it is about how little of our land we dedicate toward high-density housing (about 5%), what that results in, and why it should change:

    TenBlock’s efforts are appreciated; more homes are desperately needed in Toronto, especially near transit. Intensification in all forms should be welcome. But there should be a better way to create the homes we need that minimizes demolition of the ones we have. We don’t have a shortage of low-density land near transit infrastructure in our city. Rather, we have a shortage of the political will needed to combat the calcified forces aligned against intensification. Looking at the development process in Toronto, we can see just how inefficient and confused our system of land planning has become when we consider how we treat low-density areas compared to the very small percentage of the city where greater density is accepted. 

    I think there’s growing awareness in this city and others about why this approach to land use needs to be modernized. And there is certainly positive change underway. But there’s still work to be done. So I’m happy that Randy decided to write about it.

    For the full article, click here.

  • It’s decision time on fourplexes in Toronto

    We talk a lot about “missing middle” housing on this blog and, most recently, we’ve been talking about Toronto’s proposed amendments to allow fourplexes across the city and to do away with density maximums (among other things).

    Well, it’s now time to make a decision. These proposed changes are headed to Planning and Housing Committee on Thursday, April 27th. If you’d like to attend in person or virtually, here’s a copy of the public meeting notice.

    The other option is to make a written submission. The good people over at “More Neighbours Toronto” have created this website which will allow you to quickly write the Committee.

    There’s an auto-generated response in support of legalizing multiplex housing — and that’s what I used for my boring email submission — but, of course, you’re free to edit the text as you’d like.

    If you check the agenda, you’ll see that there are already hundreds of email submissions in to the Committee, many of them coming from More Neighbours. Clearly this is a topic that, one way or the other, many people feel very strongly about.

    Click here to make an email submission.

  • California has a plan for 2 million new homes

    On July 1 of this year, a new California bill, called the “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022”, will go into effect. And the goal of this legislation is to significantly increase the supply of new homes in the state by allowing multi-family construction on lands that are currently zoned for commercial uses.

    On some level, it is of course curious that there even needs to be this bill. Because what we are effectively saying is, “hey, we should allow people to build a mix of uses on our main streets and with high enough densities that we might actually be able to support transit.” Why was this not always the case? (Rhetorical question.)

    In the words of architect and planner Peter Calthorpe, who was recently interviewed here in ArchDaily, this is a “landmark piece of legislation” that has “received very little attention.” So that’s why we’re talking about it today.

    Calthorpe was actively involved in crafting this legislation, and his work apparently started with different scenario land-use models. The first experiment looked at a 43-mile stretch of El Camino running from San Francisco to San Jose (pictured below). And what they found was that this one strip alone could accommodate somewhere around 250,000 new infill homes.

    To put this into context, the state of California is currently building about 140,000 new homes each year, through a roughly equal (1:1) split of multi-family and low-rise single-family. Already this represents a shift, as supply used to be slanted (3:1) toward low-rise. (I don’t know when exactly this was the case, but Calthorpe mentions the figure in his interview.)

    Moving on from El Camino, Calthorpe and his team then ran a similar exercise for the five-county inner Bay area. And here they found that some 700 miles of commercial land could produce up to 1.3 million multi-family homes at “reasonable densities.” This was then expanded to the entire state of California and the number increased to 10 million new homes.

    Of course, as we have talked about before on this blog, not all of this land might actually be feasible for development. Sometimes the math doesn’t work even at a zero land cost; you might need a negative land cost in order to pencil a new development. Meaning, you might need to be paid, perhaps through some sort of subsidy.

    So what Calthorpe and the team did was use MapCraft to quickly run development feasibilities on the above sites. They had it run 6 different pro formas using local rents, construction costs, city fees, and so on. And what they determined was that this 10 million number drops down to 2 million when you apply the economic realities of the world.

    As a disclaimer, I’m not at all familiar with MapCraft. But I’m going to take this number at face value and say that this is still a lot of new homes. And this is what people are hoping for come July 1 of this year.

    Image: HDR / Peter Calthorpe

  • New rental apartments in Toronto by year of construction

    “Your local self-inflicted housing criss ouroboros” tweeted this chart out over the weekend, showing the number of new rental suites completed in Toronto since 1900. The data is from Open Data Toronto and it does not include any condominiums. It also only includes apartment buildings with 10 or more suites (which would be most of the supply anyway).

    This chart is a good example of what we spoke about yesterday: “If you want to negatively impact new supply, cap rental growth.” And that’s exactly what was done in the 1970s. But in reality, the changes were more broad than this. The 1970s saw a philosophical shift in the way Canada thought about new housing.

    Housing became rightly viewed as a basic human right. But because of this, the policy landscape shifted away from facilitating the private sector, to intervening and regulating the private sector. This included tax changes which negatively impacted new housing development and, yes, rent controls.

    Ironically, but not unexpectedly, this dramatically lowered the overall supply of new rental housing. To the point where we had effectively shut off the taps by the late 1990s. Thankfully, the condominium sector stepped in and started meaningfully delivering new housing — both for sale and for rent (via individual private investors).

    The supply of new condominiums in Toronto is not shown above, but there is no question that this (shadow rentals) has formed the vast majority of our new rental stock over the last two decades. But in my view, this shift was largely the result of policy decisions. We decided that we didn’t want the private sector building so many new purpose-built rentals, and so we told them to stop.

    It then listened remarkably well.

  • Peaks and plains

    On the exact same day last week, the Toronto Star published two articles about housing. The first one, this one here, is about how “Toronto has protected huge parts of the city from anything denser than detached or semi-detached houses” and how this has resulted in an “uneven city.” The second article, this opinion piece, is about the “many repercussions to replacing little bungalows.” And one of the implied repercussions is that 3-storey sun blockers that invade privacy might actually kill people. Hmm.

    In effect, these are the two sides of this debate. If you zoom out and look at Toronto, you will largely see a contrasting and uneven city of tall buildings and low-rise housing. Instead of building like Paris, which is consistently mid-rise — but also far denser on average than Toronto — we have chosen peaks and large plains to constrain new housing. And if you zoom in across those plains, you’ll find many areas without sidewalks, along with people, such as the author of the second article above, who believe that nothing more than a single storey is appropriate for human health.

    All of this has persisted because it has been politically popular. But time continues to show us that it actually runs counter to our goals of building an inclusive and globally competitive city region. Thankfully, it feels like we are finally reaching a tipping point.

    Photo by Jackson Case on Unsplash

  • English-speaking countries don’t like apartments

    A lack of affordable housing certainly feels like a global phenomenon. Companies are trying to 3D-print homes for under $100k. Berlin froze apartment rents back in 2019 because things were getting too expensive. And today, Hong Kong is working on building some sort of “light public housing” in an effort to reduce its massive wait times for new homes.

    But depending on where you are in the world, it might be somewhat comforting to remember that this problem seems to be particularly pronounced, here, in English-speaking countries. Whether it’s restrictive zoning rules or a general distaste for apartments and urban density, the English-speaking world has fallen behind on housing supply compared to places like continental Europe.

    Here’s an excerpt from a recent FT article:

    Forty years ago, the UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland had roughly 400 homes per 1,000 residents, level with developed continental European countries. Since then the two groups have diverged, the Anglosphere standing still while western Europe has pulled clear to 560 per 1,000.

    And this shows in our home prices:

    One argument is that continental Europe is simply more culturally accepting of apartment buildings, and that allows more new homes to be built. Seems right:

    According to this chart, the average person from the UK or the US would not be happy unless they were living in a detached house. When you get to the continent, people start to become increasingly more positive around missing middle-type housing (something in the 3-4 storey range). Though, anything more than that and things get divided.

    All in all, it doesn’t seem to really matter where you’re from, there’s a clear preference for detached housing. But maybe liking apartments even a little bit is all you need to help with overall housing supply.