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.
Some four years ago, people were talking about the possibility of New York City being dead. But of course that was nonsense. Last week, New York City published the initial findings of its housing and vacancy survey and the key takeaway is that the city’s vacancy rate dropped to 1.41% last year (2023). This is a drop from 4.54% just two years ago and the lowest measurement since 1968. It’s also even worse at more affordable rent levels:
The problem, as described by the city, is a supply-demand imbalance. Over the last two years, the city’s net housing stock grew by about 60,000 homes (~2%). This is, apparently, pretty good compared to recent years/decades; but it wasn’t nearly enough given that the city added 275,000 new households. This is the opposite of dead, and it’s not going to be addressed by just doing things like restricting short-term rentals.
We have a structural delivery problem and New York City is not alone in facing it.
At the beginning of this month, between Sep 2 and Sep 4, the research company Nanos conducted a random survey asking Canadians about their views on housing. The survey reached 1,044 adults and you may find the results interesting:
Nationally, three in five Canadians “support” or “somewhat support” decreasing the number of immigrants coming into Canada until housing becomes more affordable. (The feds plan to welcome 500,000 immigrants per year by 2025.)
The provinces that are the most in support of reduced immigration are the Prairies (65%), and the province with the lowest support is BC (52%).
82% of Canadians are “opposed” or “somewhat opposed” to building new housing on land currently set aside as green space. Of this group, 64% responded with “opposed”.
55% of Canadians “support” or “somewhat support” giving tax incentives to private developers to build new rental housing. The highest support for this is in BC (61%), Quebec (60%), and among Canadians 55 or older (55%).
However, this support flips when Canadians are asked about giving tax incentives to private developers to build for-sale housing. 58% of Canadians are “opposed” or “somewhat opposed” to doing this.
These last two points took me a second to decipher, because the wording in the article is “new rental units” and “new homes.” Naturally, I initially read these two things as being the same thing. New rentals are new homes. So what are they trying to say here?
My assumption (in the above) is that it’s a housing bias coming through and that a “new home” equals a for-sale low-rise house. Hmm. We really need to be more mindful of the semantics in our housing vocabulary.
Well this is interesting, yet not surprising: According to RBC’s annual “Home Ownership Poll”, three out of every five respondents (so nearly 60%) said that location is more important than buying a larger home. Now, there’s only so much you can glean from a single survey question, but the overarching sense is that people’s home-buying attitudes are now starting to revert back to pre-pandemic levels.
Other evidence includes how quickly urban residential rents/prices have bounced back and, in many cases, now exceed their pre-pandemic levels. Below is a chart from the WSJ showing residential net-effective median rent prices in Manhattan. The low came in November 2020 when the median rent price hit $2,743 per month. But today it is well over $3,500, which is the highest it has been in a decade.
Certain aspects of how we will continue to live and work in our cities is admittedly still evolving (see my recent post on office utilization). But part of our pandemic narrative was that location was no longer going to matter, or at least not matter nearly as much. New York City, to give just one example, had died forever. But that was obviously bullshit. And what we are seeing in the residential space is an important leading indicator. Location always matters.
The National Association of Realtors in the US has a “Community and Transportation Preference Survey” that it conducts usually every two years. Last year (2020), wasn’t supposed to be a survey year, but given the pandemic, they decided to run it in June and see if people’s preferences had changed at all during that time.
Last June feels like eons ago to me and I bet that if you asked people how they were feeling today it may be slightly different. Nonetheless, the survey asked 2,000 adults from the fifty-largest metro areas a bunch of questions about where and how they live and where and how they might want to live in the future.
The topline results can be found over here. But for a bit of context, 58% of respondents were people who lived in a single-family detached house; 26% of respondents were people who lived in a building with two or more apartments and condos; and the rest of the respondents were split across townhouses, rowhouses, mobile homes, trailers, and other. (I’m kind of curious about the 2% who answered with other.)
One of the questions that I thought might be interesting to this audience is this one here about housing preferences going forward:
The question asks the respondents to imagine that they are moving into another home. It then asks about priorities and, more specifically, about their preferred trade-off between amenities and walkability versus a large detached house with a big yard.
Overall the split in preferences has remained close to 50/50 over the last three surveys. But there appears to be a small uptick toward large homes and less amenities. I wouldn’t be surprised if the pandemic contributed to this thinking last summer. But who knows if this will persist. At the same time, actions speak louder than words.
My response to the above question would be less space, greater walkability, and more amenities. I have no desire to live in a low-rise grade-related house, especially one that is disconnected from the city. I like urbanity. What about you?
As many of you know, Toronto currently allows “laneway suites” across the entire city on an as-of-right basis. What this means is that no variances or special planning permissions are generally required to build. Assuming you meet the by-law, you can go straight to a building permit.
This is how Mackay Laneway House was built and, though it required an extra layer of approvals from the forestry department because of a large on-site tree, getting a building permit was relatively straight forward. I think it took between 6-8 weeks from initial submission.
As part of the City’s efforts to increase overall housing supply, another form of accessory dwelling unit is currently being studied: garden suites. Public consultations are now underway and, from what I have heard, the hope is to make these similarly as-of-right before the end of the year. Hopefully it’ll be earlier.
I think this will be a positive thing for Toronto and so I would encourage all of you to complete the online garden suite survey that the City has open until June 1, 2021. Public consultation is an important part of the planning process and too often it is the voices of a few representing the views of many.
Back in 2019, Lake Research Partners conducted a housing study for California YIMBY. One of the questions that California voters were asked was about whether or not they support or oppose having more housing built in their community. Here is how people responded (about 700 interviews were conducted by phone and about 500 people were asked online):
What this seems to suggest is that most people (61% of all voters) support more housing in their community, with 38% (the darker bar) feeling very strongly about it. These results also seem to suggest that if you’re already a homeowner and/or if you’re a Republican, that you are then less likely to support housing in your community (51% and 54%, respectively). Even still, one possible conclusion that you can draw from these findings is that, perhaps in all cases, a majority of people (>50%) support the idea of more housing in their community.
However, the problem with this approach is that you’re ultimately asking a pretty generic and theoretical question about housing supply. I am presuming that this is a scenario where the rubber has not yet hit the road. Indeed, most people will say that they support new housing in their backyard, but is that actually how things will play it? It’s pretty common, for example, to hear things like: “I support new development, but I think this project is simply too ___________.”
So while I think that there are some interesting directional indicators that one could draw from these findings, I suspect that the numbers in the real world might be slightly less rosy.
Back in April, the US Census Bureau started running weekly surveys in order to try and assess how COVID-19 was impacting people’s lives. They call this the “Household Pulse Survey.” They’re now up to week 12, with the latest data running up until July 21, 2020. Here’s some housing data that I think many of you will find interesting:
The July 1, 2019 population estimate for the US was 328,239,523, of which about 77.7% are persons 18 years or older.
One of the things that the survey looked at was the total population 18 years or older living in owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing. About 148 million people (~60%) identified as living in the former, about 78 million (~29%) identified as living in the latter, and about 27 million people (~11%) did not report their tenure. This seems to jibe with point number one and the overall home ownership rate in the US.
For the owners, 1/3 reported to own their home “free and clear” of a mortgage and about 58% said that they made last month’s mortgage payment. So about 91% of owners were seemingly okay in June. The remaining ~9% were people who either got a mortgage payment deferral, or simply didn’t pay. About 0.5% did not report.
For the renters, about 5% reported to be living in a home with free rent and about 75% said that they made last month’s rental payment. Over 18% said that they missed last month’s rent and just over 2% said that they had their rent deferred. The remaining 1% or so are people who simply did not report.
Combining both tenures, it looks like about 12.5% to 13% of respondents had a bit of a problem paying their housing costs last month. (I’m giving a range, because presumably the “did not report” crowd could go either way.) I don’t know about you, but this number doesn’t seem all that shocking to me.
If you would like to download a copy of all of the survey results, click here.
