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

  • Rent control and inclusionary zoning

    I received an email from a reader over the weekend saying that my comments around rent control have been too critical, and that they are not doing proper justice to the challenges that renters face in today’s cities. I thought this was a fair comment and so I’d like to respond to it publicly on the blog.

    But before I get into that, it’s worth saying that housing issues are incredibly complex. And I am certainly not professing to have all of the answers. In fact, part of the reason I write this blog is so that I can think critically about these topics and hear what other people have to say.

    It is obvious that wages have not kept pace with home prices in many cities around the world. This is a problem. And so we can all agree that we need more economic opportunities, we need more housing, and we need more attainable housing. The question is how best to go about this.

    Mechanisms like rent control and inclusionary zoning might seem like obvious solutions. Just cap rents and force developers to build affordable housing. Problem solved at no cost to anyone, right? It’s not that simple. Every intervention creates distortions in the market.

    To give just one example, studies suggest that rent controls end up creating a misallocation of housing. Because if you are living in a rent controlled home and your rent is well below market, you are now heavily incentivized never to move. Even if you have an empty nest with 5 bedrooms, why would you?

    Of course, there are other possible repercussions. Residential contracts are typically gross leases (though some utilities might be sub-metered and paid for by the tenant). This is in contrast to commercial leases where net leases are common and most, if not all, of the operating costs are passed through to the tenant.

    Why this matters is that if your rents are capped but your utility costs, taxes, and other operating expenses are continuing to rise, you may run into a situation as a landlord where you can no longer afford to upkeep your building. And you’re certainly not going to invest in any new improvements if this is your situation.

    Rent controls could also impact the supply of new housing by making it no longer feasible to build. This is similar to what we have seen with policies like inclusionary zoning. Just last month San Francisco went on the record saying that it’s going to rethink its inclusionary zoning policies because of a view that it is now choking off new housing supply.

    And so herein lies one of our great housing challenges. We want more housing and we want more affordable housing. But depending on how we approach the latter, it could hurt the former, which ends up creating a viscous cycle.

    Building new rental housing is very challenging in Toronto (and elsewhere). Typically the way the process goes for a developer is that you start by preparing a detailed development pro forma. This pro forma will then tell you that your new rental development is infeasible. And so you go back, convert it to a condominium development, and then it magically becomes feasible.

    I am exaggerating, but only slightly. The point is that there are lots of developers out there who would love to build more rental housing — they just can’t make the math worth.

    My goal with this post was to explain where I have been coming from with some of my past comments. I also used the opportunity to link to a number of my related posts. But I haven’t really put forward any possible solutions. I plan to do that in a follow-up post, and I think I’m going to call it “the definitive but crazy guide to creating more affordable housing.”

    So if any of you have any crazy ideas, please send them over.

  • San Francisco is kind of on the verge of abolishing single-family zoning

    The headline sounds pretty promising: San Francisco is on the verge of abolishing single-family zoning, and will soon allow 4-plexes across the city and up to 6 units on corner lots. It is also clear recognition that, “hey, we have a housing problem and should probably figure out a way to increase overall supply.”

    Unfortunately, when you look at the policy details, you’ll see that this is likely to be more symbolic than effective. What is being proposed is to take the 40% of San Francisco’s land area that is zoned exclusively for single-family houses and upzone it to allow for duplexes on an as-of-right basis.

    And then, if you happen to have owned the property for at least 5 years — or inherited it from a family member that did — you can apply for a special “density exception” from the city. This would allow you to build 6 units on corner lots and 4 units on all remaining mid-block lots.

    But here’s the other thing: if you are granted this density exception, the additional units (beyond your as-of-right two) will be subject to rent control. So the important question here is about whether or not anyone will end up building more than luxury duplexes and, if they do, will there be enough scale to produce a meaningful impact.

    I’m not familiar with development cost structures in San Francisco and I’m not sure if there will be any incentives/subsidies for delivering these additional rent controlled units, but the above feels like far too many barriers if the goal is more housing.

    But it remains a step in the right direction. Symbolism certainly has its merits.

    For other posts on infill housing, click here.

    Photo by Braden Collum on Unsplash

  • Zoning controls, sprawl, and housing affordability

    Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but I continue to feel like there is a groundswell of interest in trying to improve housing supply and overall affordability. The YIMBY movement continues to gain steam. Here are are few excerpts from a recent M. Nolan Gray article where he calls for an end to zoning as we know it today:

    In nearly every major U.S. city, apartments are banned in at least 70 percent of residential areas. San Jose prohibits apartments in 94 percent of its residential areas. The most a developer can build in these zones is a detached single-family home.

    The results speak for themselves. Houston builds housing at 14 times the rate of peers like San Jose. And it isn’t just sprawl: In 2019, Houston built roughly the same number of apartments as Los Angeles, despite being half its size. Since reforms to minimum-lot-size rules were put in place in 1998, more than 25,000 townhouses have been built, overwhelmingly in existing urban areas.

    To be clear, Houston has made its share of planning mistakes. But, free of zoning, the city can constantly remake itself. That Houston is now one of the most affordable and diverse cities in the country is no accident.

    The relationship between housing affordability and constraints on development is a well-documented one. If you want more affordable housing, you generally want fewer, rather than more, constraints on delivering new housing.

    But as I was reading through the article, I couldn’t help but think more specifically about the relationship between sprawl and affordability. Because it is also true that, for a variety of reasons, the former has tended to help the latter (or at least coincide with it), which is why Gray felt it was important to say “and it isn’t just sprawl” when talking about Houston.

    Part of this relationship has to do with the fact that expansionist development tends to be of the low-rise stick-built varietal, which is a relatively cost effective way to build. Whereas the higher density infill stuff tends to be built using more expensive materials like reinforced concrete. But of course there are many other factors at play, including lower land costs.

    So I think one really interesting question is this one here: To what extent could we break this relationship between sprawl and affordability with what Gray is advocating for? In other words, how cheap could we make new infill housing in our older cities if we were to greatly loosen zoning controls or possibly even remove them all together?

    I don’t know the exact answer, but I know that directionally it would be better.

  • The cost floor

    Generally speaking, the cost of building a new building is always going up. There are moments in time, like during a recession, where costs might temporarily correct downward. But generally speaking, there is a cost floor that is constantly rising. This includes everything from hard costs to rising development charges.

    We have spoken before about how developers typically look at their costs, and then price accordingly through “cost-plus pricing.” Put differently, it is answering the question, “what do I need to rent or sell this space for in order to cover all of these projected costs?” This can be tricky when costs are all over the place, as they are right now with double percentage point swings, but that’s a different conversation.

    As long as there remains some price elasticity in the market, cost-plus pricing can work just fine. Costs are up, but I’m just going to increase pricing to absorb most of it, or in some cases all of it. However, problems occur when and where you can’t increase pricing. Maybe it’s in a marginal area where rents aren’t increasing. Or maybe interest rates are rising and overall price elasticity is tightening.

    Whatever the case may be, in this scenario, it likely means that development will stop and supply will slow or possibly even shut off. We are starting to see some evidence of this happening in Toronto right now.

    But if the fundamentals of the overall market remain strong, this should only be a short-term problem. Eventually the market will catch up (through higher pricing and/or some reduced costs), and then projects will return to being feasible. But if there’s a structural problem in the market, maybe development never returns without some kind of subsidies.

    Thankfully, it is obvious to most that markets like Toronto have incredibly strong fundamentals. We can screw up a lot of things as long as we remain open to smart immigrants from around the world. This makes it fairly easy to have conviction around what will happen over the longer term. And this is generally how I like to make decisions, whether we’re talking about real estate or crypto (see above tweet).

    But all of this doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t also be managing the short run.

  • What kind of monster wants to bulldoze wild roses?

    I just finished reading this article by Nellie Bowles about how San Francisco became a failed city. Here’s an excerpt that relates to housing supply:

    Consider the story of the flower farm at 770 Woolsey Street. It slopes down 2.2 acres in the sunny southern end of the city and is filled with run-down greenhouses, the glass long shattered—a chaos of birds and wild roses. For five years, advocates fought a developer who was trying to put 63 units on that bucolic space. They wanted to sell flowers there and grow vegetables for the neighborhood—a kind of banjo-and-beehives utopian fantasy. The thing they didn’t want—at least not there, not on that pretty hill—was a big housing development. Who wants to argue against them? In San Francisco the word developer is basically a slur, close to calling someone a Republican. What kind of monster wants to bulldoze wild roses?

    Decades of progressive governance in San Francisco yielded a thicket of regulations—safety reviews, environmental reviews, historical reviews, sunlight-obstruction reviews—that empower residents to essentially paralyze development. It costs only $682 to file for a discretionary review that can hold up a construction project for years, and if you’re an established club that’s been around for at least two years, it’s free. Plans for one 19-unit-development geared toward the middle class were halted this year because, among other issues raised by the neighbors, the building would have increased overall shadow coverage on Dolores Park by 0.001 percent.

    These are just two examples of San Francisco’s exclusionary zoning problem, but of course, the city has other unfortunate things going as well. For the full article, click here.

  • I was here first

    Connor Dougherty published this thoughtful piece about NIMBYs over the weekend in the New York Times. And it has been making the rounds online ever since.

    It is thoughtful in that Connor tries to understand what makes NIMBYs tick. And he does this by interviewing people like Susan Kirsch, a resident of Marin County, California who generally opposes all of the things that California is doing to try and address its housing shortage and who has been fighting a townhouse project in her neighborhood for the last 18 years.

    The developer, who is now 86, started the project in his 60s. In the article he is quoted saying that he’s either going to succeed or he’s going to die. It’s one or the other.

    What is clear is that we all see things differently. While some people might see new housing as serving an important need. Others see new development as running counter to environmentalism and good stewardship. Indeed, for some, there is no shortage of housing (even in cities that are growing in population). It’s simply a problem of too many investors buying and creating rental homes or too many Airbnbs or some other red herring.

    Whatever the case may be, it’s hard not to pay attention to quotes like this one:

    “From my backyard I see the hillside,” Ms. Kirsch wrote from her Hotmail account. “Explain how my property value is not deflated if open space is replace(d) with view-blocking, dense, unsightly buildings.”

    Look, we all get this. Nobody wants their views obstructed. Nobody wants more cars parked in their neighborhood. And nobody wants more dog shit in their local park, among many other things. But implicit in this statement is a view that certain people’s needs and desires are more important than those of others. I was here first. Too bad for you.

  • Our cities are full

    One of the most common objections to new housing is that the place is already too crowded and potentially even full. But Jerusalem Demsas’ recently article in The Atlantic about how much people seem to hate other people is a good reminder that the topic of overpopulation can be a complicated one.

    Because what are we really saying when we say a place is too crowded or full? Is it just that this particular neighborhood is full, or are we talking about entire cities being full?

    Moreover, who determines when a place is full? Berkeley, California is, for example, a hell of a lot less dense than a city like Paris. So if a place like Berkeley can be considered full by some people, what does that mean for Paris? Presumably it’s entirely unliveable.

    Or could it be that the entire world is simply full and we should be looking at more drastic measures to curb population growth (in the places that are actually reaching replacement-level fertility rates)?

    It’s all very complicated. Thankfully Demsas offers up some possible solutions in her article:

    We have, of course, discovered an elusive technology to allow more people to live on less land: It’s called an apartment building. And if people would like fewer neighbors competing for parking spaces, then they should rest assured that buses, trains, protected bike lanes, and maintained sidewalks are effective, cutting-edge inventions available to all.

    The rest of the article is just as good.

  • Disease-breeding tenements

    What do you think of this beautiful low-rise apartment building? It is called Spadina Gardens and it was built (allegedly illegally) on Toronto’s Spadina Avenue in 1906, shortly before the City enacted an outright ban on “disease-breeding tenements” (i.e. apartment buildings) in all residential neighborhoods.

    This, of course, is a form of exclusionary zoning. Our predecessors had decided that apartments were bad, they promoted disease and immorality, and that they were likely to destroy or at least corrupt Toronto by making it, you know, less waspy.

    Important studies are underway here in Toronto, and across North America, to determine whether we should do something about this longstanding city building tradition. Should we allow a mixture of different housing types in our residential neighborhoods, or should we keep things just the way that they are? That being low-rise and single-family.

    In the meantime, we are implementing things like inclusionary zoning, which I guess makes some people feel better about themselves and the current state of affairs. But in the end, it sits very much on top of our exclusionary past.

    Low-rise single-family home neighborhoods remain off limits. Apartments should only go in select locations (provided they don’t bother the single-family homes). And any efforts to create greater affordability and diversity should only impact the new apartments and not the low-rise single-family homes that already exist.

    I would encourage all of you to have a listen to 99% Percent Invisible’s recent episode about Toronto’s “missing middle.” It does a great job explaining why Toronto looks and performs the way that it does today, and why it’s time that we do something about it. It’s also highly relevant to not just Toronto, but many cities across North America.

  • Displacement and gentrification

    Let’s consider a scenario where we have a relatively affordable 20-unit apartment building in a rapidly growing global city. This particular building happens to be of an older vintage and so let’s say that the in-place rents are about 40% below market.

    Next let’s assume that the zoning has just been updated for the land and it is now possible and economically feasible to build a total of 300 housing units in a new high-rise building. This would mean demolishing the existing 20 apartment units.

    But because this global city has rental replacement policies in place, these 20 units would need to be rebuilt within the new high-rise and offered to the current residents at exactly the same rents. So same price, but new housing.

    Compensation would also need to be provided to these residents to cover the cost of moving around. Because they would obviously need to move off site to allow for construction and then, if they’d like, move back once construction is complete.

    How would such a scenario make you feel?

    The typical objections usually involve, among other things, concerns around displacement, gentrification, and overall built form. There is a concern that investments of this magnitude might push people out of the area and also change the character of it.

    But at the end of the day, these 20 existing homes are not disappearing from the market. They will remain part of the housing stock, but now with the addition of 280 new market rate homes.

    I think it’s important to remember that in a rapidly growing city, trying to maintain the status quo by limiting new development can actually have the opposite effect. Because what you end up doing is creating a scenario where more and more people are fighting for a relatively fixed supply homes. And that is certainly one way to encourage displacement and gentrification.

  • How to tell if you have a housing shortage

    Housing supply is one of those topics that a lot of people can’t seem to agree on. Some people, including annoying city bloggers from Toronto, will tell you that we’re not building nearly enough new housing. While others will tell you that, no, everything is just fine. We are totally building enough to meet demand.

    So today I am going to encourage all of you to read Brian Potter’s latest Construction Physics article. In it, he answers the question: Is there a housing shortage or not? But just in case some of you don’t feel like doing that, here is the tl;dr:

    • You can’t look at construction rates alone and infer whether or not you have a housing shortage. There are so many other factors to consider, including household size (see above chart). A drop in household size alone, for example, means that you need more housing, even if nothing else is going on.
    • The US is probably short at least several million housing units right now.
    • Vacancy rates, within a market, are pretty useful for predicting housing cost increases. When vacancy rates fall, prices go up. This is one reason why housing supply matters.
    • Looking at the gap between population increases and housing supply increases is “hilariously non-predictive” if you’re trying to determine whether or not you need more housing. We’ve all seen this before: This city added X people, but only constructed Y new homes.
    • Finally, there is an extremely strong correlation between housing supply restrictions (i.e. land use restrictions) and home prices. It turns out that the harder we make it to build new homes, the more expensive they become.

    So yeah, Potter’s article is definitely worth a read when you get a moment.

    Chart via Construction Physics