Tag: housing

• Percentage of young Americans now living with a parent

  Here’s some data from the Pew Research Center looking at the percentage of young people (18- to 29-year olds) in the US that live with at least one parent. It it based on an analysis of monthly Census Bureau data and is obviously interesting/relevant given that this pandemic seems to have precipitated a number of people moving back home. As of July of this year, 52% of young adults were thought to be living with at least one parent, which is up from 47% back in February.

  

  At first I was surprised to see these numbers as high as they are. But it’s really the 18-24 age bracket that is driving this number up, which makes sense given that a chunk of this demographic is probably in school, not working, and now unable to do much on a campus. Among 25- to 29-year olds, the range is significantly lower, with just over a quarter (26% -> 28%) living with their parent(s).

  What I’m curious about now, after seeing this chart, is what is driving some of these regional, ethnic, and gender differences? Why are young midwesterners seemingly less likely to live with a parent compared to those in the northeast? Is it cultural? Economic? Or something else? And is the above an indication that maybe women are more independent than men?

  2020.10.08

• The paneláks of Prague

  

  At the beginning of this year (which seems like eons ago), I wrote about a CityLab series that Feargus O’Sullivan was doing on the vernacular home designs of a handful of European cities. Cities like London and Berlin.

  Well, after a brief pause, that series is back in the form of a CityLab “storythread.” It’s now called, “The Iconic Home Designs That Define Our Global Cities.” In it, he explores the various floor plans, housing typologies, and tenures that you might find around the world. Everywhere from from Singapore to Reykjavik.

  The most recent article is all about Prague’s communist-era apartments. Apparently people call these paneláks because they were initially built using some sort of collection of prefabricated panels. They were a quick and dirty housing solution for a city and country that were rapidly urbanizing starting in the late 1950s. (See, prefab works.)

  But what I find most interesting about the story of these paneláks is how their reputation seems to have changed and evolved over time. They proved to be a far more adaptable form of housing than you might initially think, going from written off and ready for demolition, in some cases, to then becoming a form of aspirational housing.

  Part of this allegedly had to do with a handover from state ownership to private ownership, which maybe goes to show you that architecture and design, alone, aren’t enough when it comes to housing innovation. You really need to consider the whole picture.

  But regardless, it is clear to me that tastes do change, and housing is no exception. Renewal is an integral part of urban life. And one generation’s trash might be another generation’s treasure.

  Photo by Jakub Matyáš on Unsplash

  2020.10.02

• Everything has a cost

  A new report was just published by Urbanation and the Federation of Rental-Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) arguing that the Greater Toronto Area is undersupplying rental housing to the tune of about 20,000 units per year. This number considers both purpose-built rental housing and condominiums that are purchased by investors and later rented out. (Shane Dingman also covered the report in this recent Globe and Mail article.)

  These findings probably won’t come as a surprise to a lot of you. It is pretty common for most big/growing cities to operate with a perpetual housing supply deficit. With all of the barriers to development, it’s often impossible to keep pace with demand. This naturally creates upward pressure on pricing. But the other factor that cannot be ignored is development costs. How much does it cost to actually deliver new supply?

  Here’s an excerpt from the report that speaks to this consideration:

  While the results of the infill development potential exercise are encouraging, the economics
  of intensifying these sites may be too difficult for owners to ultimately move them forward in many cases even with a zero land cost, as achievable rents outside of Central Toronto are
  often not high enough to offset development and operating costs.

  It’s also something that we’ve talked about many times before on the blog. Even with free land, there are going to be countless sites and neighborhoods where it does not make economic sense to build anything new: development costs > potential revenues. And so to build, somebody is going to have to pay. Either the costs need to be subsidized or the revenues needs to be topped up somehow. Otherwise, supply = 0.

  If you’re facing a deficit of 20,000 units per year, this seems like something you may want to consider. How might we increase supply? And how might we increase the supply of affordable housing? Many, including some of the folks interviewed in Shane’s Globe and Mail article, believe that inclusionary zoning is one such solution. Force new developments to deliver a certain percentage of affordable units (kind of like forcing restaurants to offer up 5-10% of their tables at a loss).

  But again, I think it’s important to remember that whenever costs exceed revenues, somebody is going to have to pay for that shortfall, otherwise supply = 0. Something has to give, whether that be reduced costs, greater density, or higher rents on the remaining market rate units. I think part of the allure of inclusionary zoning is that it creates the allusion of a free lunch. But here’s the thing: everything has a cost.

  2020.09.24

• Land and improvements

  

  At a high level there are two components to the value of a house. There’s the value of the land and there’s the value of all the improvements. That is, the bricks, wood, and other stuff that form the actual house. When a media outlet runs a sensational headline about some shack in Toronto selling for, oh I don’t know, a million dollars, what it actually means is that the land in this particular area was just valued by somebody at this number. In fact, if the property is very clearly a “knock down” the improvements sitting on the land become a liability/cost rather than anything of value. Because whoever buys the land will almost certainly need to remove the improvements before they can build whatever it is they want to build.

  This distinction between land and improvements is a valuable one for many reasons. Here’s one example. In cases where the improvements aren’t some shack, you may be faced with a scenario where a property can be valued in two different ways. You can value it based on the development potential of the underlying land or you can value it based on the income (either in-place or potential) that the improvements are generating, or could be generating with some hard work on your part. If the development value is greater than the value of the improvements, then there will be pressure to redevelop. Conversely, if the opposite is true, it is likely that not much will happen other than maybe capital expenditures applied to the existing building(s).

  Of course, you could also run into a scenario where there’s little development potential and there’s zero ability to invest in the existing improvements, either because the market rents are too low in the area or because they’re capped and/or controlled in some way. In this scenario, it’s likely that not much will happen other than the normal and expected depreciation of the improvements. Maybe one day the development/investment math will work. But in the interim, you probably won’t be seeing any of those sensational media headlines.

  Photo by Andre Gaulin on Unsplash

  2020.09.12

• A few thoughts about housing supply

  Here are a few things to consider.

  One, the home you live in was likely built by a person or company that was trying to make a profit.

  Two, when your home was being developed and built, it probably upset a bunch of people. Both because something new was coming and because construction can be annoying.

  Three, your home was built using materials and construction techniques that were readily available at the time. Some of those materials and techniques may no longer be practical.

  Four, when your home was complete, somebody probably thought, “boy, they don’t build them like they used to.”

  Five, the need for new housing doesn’t stop just because you now have a home.

  2020.08.27

• Preferred method of communication

  I was “on site” this morning for the installation of the helical piers for my laneway suite (that will be the topic of a separate post). More often than not, I’m in the office. But I like going on site because, well, building things is fun. One of the things that I find interesting about being on site, though, is that my preferred method of communication always seems to change. When I’m in the office, I have a bias toward emails. That is the case for two reasons: 1) I’m usually focusing on something and I find that calls can be disruptive, and 2) emails can be a highly efficient way to communicate. Tell me what you need (in the shortest email possible) and I’ll try and respond as succinctly as I can. However, when I’m on site, all of a sudden I don’t want to do emails. I would rather talk on the phone. That becomes the most direct way to deal with things. I am mentioning this because communication is paramount. And many of us have different preferences for how we like to do it. Knowing those preferences can be helpful when you’re trying to get things done.

  2020.08.21

• Home listings are up 96% in San Francisco

  A recent market report from Zillow has found that urban and suburban housing markets in the US haven’t actually diverged all that much as a result of this pandemic. Despite what you might be reading in the news, Zillow’s national listing data does not seem to suggest that an urban exodus might be underway. Suburban and rural home listings are seeing about the same attention (views) as they were last year. And the rates of appreciation seem to be holding. As of June, annual home value growth was 4.3% for urban areas and 4.1% for suburban areas.

  There are, however, some exceptions and local nuances. Rents in urban zip codes have fallen more compared to their suburban counterparts. This seems to make intuitive sense given that I would have expected demand to be less from young professionals, students, and immigrants. Many cities probably also saw a bunch of their short-term rental inventory flip over to the long-term rental market (how much, I don’t know). But my view is that this will prove to be a short-term phenomenon.

  

  There are also some markets that have performed quite differently. San Francisco is one of those cases. The city proper has seen home prices fall 4.9% and inventory (listings) increase by 96% year-over-year. This is a massive outlier. If I were to speculate as to why this is the case, it would be that (1) this was brewing even before COVID-19 and (2) the tech community is perhaps more convinced of this whole working from home thing. Why remain in expensive San Francisco? It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. For a full copy of Zillow’s urban-suburban market report, click here.

  Image: Zillow

  2020.08.17

• The urbanization of families

  Toronto has more people living in apartments than not. Looking at 2016 census data, the City of Toronto has about 1,112,930 occupied private dwellings and the breakdown between apartments (both lower and higher than 5 storeys) and grade-related housing is roughly 60/40. If you look at what’s been built more recently, the split is closer to 80/20. From 1996 to 2014, about 78% of all housing completions in the city were condominiums/apartments.

  So what is obvious to me is that the City of Toronto is becoming more dense, rather than less dense, and that family housing is destined to become more urban. As of 2011, there were 10,145 more families with children living in apartments/condominiums in the city compared to 15 years earlier. By comparison, the number of families with children living in low-rise housing remained more or less flat over this same time period.

  Of course, what this data doesn’t speak to is the number of people and families that may have opted to leave the City of Toronto for the suburbs — driving until they qualify for the kind of housing product that they would like to consume. The number of children living in higher density housing might be increasing within the city, but we probably shouldn’t ignore the pull toward the suburbs that still exists during family formation.

  Cities around the world are working to make their urban environments more suitable to families and young children. Here in Toronto we have something known as the Growing Up Guidelines. But the focus seems to be largely on design considerations — think playrooms and stroller-friendly foyers. That’s crucial, but it’s not everything. There are also very real economic realities to consider.

  The average price of remaining condo inventory in the Greater Toronto Area last quarter was nearly $1,100 psf. That puts a family-sized 1,000 sf suite at $1.1 million — and a lot more if you’re in a central neighborhood. The average would be closer to $1.5 million downtown. Obviously not all families can afford this. So there’s an affordability challenge. It’s one thing for the critics to say that developers should be building larger suites, but the market needs to be there.

  Another consideration is that of financing. Most developers rely on construction financing in order to build their projects. And in order to build a new condominium, there is typically a requirement to pre-sell a certain number of suites (revenue is the actual governor). This is generally a lot easier to do with smaller suites and with investor suites because these buyers tend to be more comfortable waiting out construction.

  Families, on the other hand, usually have a more immediate time horizon. It’s harder to forecast when the need will arise and it may not be financially viable to do that pre-emptively. And so I would argue that in addition to having an affordability challenge, we also have a financing structure in place that biases the type of homes that get built. There are, of course, advantages to this model. Pre-sales are a way for lenders to mitigate risk. It helps to ensure that the market doesn’t get ahead of itself. But there are side effects.

  Despite all this, we are seeing more families with children in higher density housing. Anecdotally, I see it happening in elevators with the number of strollers. This trend is destined to continue, but the winds are not entirely at the back of this shift.

  2020.08.15

• Missed housing payments in the US

  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.

  2020.08.07

• Flats for land

  

  In Athens, I have a learned, there is something known as antiparochi. The practice took hold in the middle of the 20th century at a time when Athens was in desperate need of new housing. Supposedly during the 1950s, an estimated 560,000 people came to Athens from the countryside in search of opportunity — effectively doubling the population of the city. That was a bit of a problem for a city with no money to build new housing. So something needed to be done. The solution was a ground-up arrangement (i.e. it wasn’t a government initiative) that allowed developers and contractors to increase the supply of new housing without having to ever pay for land. And given the time period in which this took hold, it also spurred quite the modernist building boom, leaving an architectural legacy that to this day continues to define Athens.

  Here’s an explanation of how antiparochi works (taken from this BBC article by Alex Sakalis):

  Here’s how it worked: a contractor would approach the owner of a house and offer him a deal. He would knock down his house, and build a block of flats in its place. In return, the homeowner would be given a certain number of flats (usually two or three), while the contractor would then make his money by selling the remaining flats to Greeks who were seeking accommodation. Generally, no money was exchanged and no contracts were signed.

  What’s so incredible about antiparochi is that it emerged spontaneously out of the housing crisis in Athens. “There was no specific law which told people ‘OK now you have the right to collaborate and build whatever you like’. It was the people themselves that found out this possibility,” says Panos Dragonas, professor of Architecture at the University of Patras.

  Even more incredibly, the state completely accepted what its citizens had started doing, introducing only a few minor regulations, such as a maximum height for the apartment buildings – known as polykatoikies in Greek – and a ban on building over archaeological sites or on top of Athens’ seven historical hills. There were no property taxes – the state never made any direct income from antiparochi.

  The elegance of antiparochi was that it appeared to solve all of Greece’s problems at once. It provided homeowners and home seekers with modern apartments, while creating enough profit for the contractors to continue investing in construction without state subsidies or bank loans.

  Photo by Anastase Maragos on Unsplash

  2020.07.21