Tag: housing

• Two-up, two-down

  Feargus O’Sullivan is doing a series in CityLab right now on the “home designs” that define four European cities: London, Berlin, Amsterdam, and Paris. The first one is on London’s classic “two-up, two-down” design, which refers to a two storey home with a living room and kitchen on the ground floor and two bedrooms on the second. It’s a simple design, but one that has supposedly endured.

  O’Sullivan argues that for many, or perhaps most in Britain, this is what a “home” feels like. It’s grade-related and there are two floors. Indeed, only 14% of British people live in an apartment, compared to 57% in Germany (a majority). This percentage is much higher in London, with about 43% of people living in an apartment. But about 25% of the population still lives in some sort of attached house.

  Home equals house. And for us North Americans, this is of course relatable. But the Germany example is a reminder that this is not necessarily universal. Attitudes toward housing are cultural. And cultures can and do change. I am seeing that happen right now in Toronto. Some of us are becoming less like the British and more like the Germans.

  2020.01.11

• The Florida homestead exemption

  I was at a family dinner over the weekend and the topic of the Florida homestead exemption came up. The Florida Constitution bestows a number of advantages upon homeowners (provided the home is that person’s primary residence). And like all rules, it impacts behaviors.

  For one, your primary residence is largely protected from creditors, meaning a sale generally can’t be forced in order to pay back what you might owe. If you’re out there in the world “betting the farm,” this might be a way to protect yourself.

  There are also a number of property tax benefits. You can reduce your assessed value by certain specified amounts, and any increases are (I think) capped at the lesser of 3% or the rate of inflation. (Related post: California’s Proposition 13.)

  As we’ve talked about before on the blog, this second exemption likely creates a disincentive for longtime homeowners to sell/move, as even a lateral move would result in possibly much higher taxes. So why move unless you really have to?

  The counter argument is that it helps fixed income retirees not get squeezed by rising taxes (and that’s an important consideration in Florida). But it also means that first-time/younger buyers end up shouldering more of the property tax burden — at least initially.

  If any of you have strong opinions about the Florida homestead exemption, I would be interested in hearing from you in the comment section below. I am not a lawyer or a tax expert. So please don’t consider this post as any sort of advice.

  2020.01.05

• Cashing out home equity

  Below is an interesting chart from the WSJ showing total home equity cashed out in the United States by quarter. What is clear is that the US is nowhere near its pre-2008 peak in terms of total dollars. However, if you look at the percentage of homeowners who refinanced their home in 2018 and took out cash at a higher interest rate, it was nearly 60% of all refis. This is up in the pre-2008 territory and it’s about 3x more than the average from 2009 to 2017.

  

  Now, you could argue that this is a fairly rationale outcome after a long period of economic expansion and home price appreciation. And interest rates were, on average, even lower in the 2012 to 2016 period. But, the WSJ posits that this could be a signal that people simply need the cash — which is why the majority are willing to accept a higher interest rate. Here is another chart from a different WSJ article:

  

  Housing debt (mortgage balances) has come way down since 2008, but non-housing debt has come way up and now exceeds that of the former. Non-housing consumer debt rose by about $1 trillion in real dollars from 2013 to 2019, principally driven by student loans and car loans. Noteworthy is the fact that student loans are rising fairly linearly (along with dramatically), whereas car loans and credit card debt seem to follow the overall economy.

  When people are feeling richer (and confident about their economic prospects) they go out and buy things, like cars.

  Charts: WSJ

  2019.12.28

• The power brokers

  The Nib’s recent comic about Jane Jacobs vs. The Power Brokers (i.e. Robert Moses) is a good little overview of her lessons and legacy. But I don’t understand the claim that developers co-opted her ideals in order to exploit and gentrify urban neighborhoods. According to the comic, gentrification is always a top-down affair by developers, and never a spontaneous emergence as a result of other humans and/or industry wanting to be in a particular place.

  

  I can think of many neighborhoods that have seen investment from groups other than traditional developers, including from individual homeowners. Take, for example, Cabbagetown in Toronto. There was never a top-down developer moment. It was individuals who saw beauty (and also opportunity) at a time when others were scared of the area. Is that acceptable? Perhaps more importantly, did these people wear black suits?

  The other missing piece is the fact that desirable urban neighborhoods are, today, in incredibly short supply. During the reign of Robert Moses, Jane Jacobs had a view of cities that was in opposition to the planning zeitgeist of the time. But over time, she went from controversial to enlightened, and alongside this we saw a return to cities.

  Combined with strict land use policies, this rising demand for Jacobian-style neighborhoods has meant that many/most dense urban centers operate with a perpetual housing supply deficit. There’s not enough cool urban housing to go around. Add in the current low interest rate environment, and you then have even more money searching for that perfect home in the West Village. That tends to do things to prices.

  Image: The Nib

  2019.12.20

• Australia lost 124,000 millionaires last year

  Global household wealth is currently estimated at about $360 trillion, according to Credit Suisse’s 2019 Global Wealth Report. This represents an increase of about $9 trillion (~2.6%) from 2018-2019.

  

  Over the last decade, much of this growth in household wealth has come from two countries: the United States and China. 40% of the world’s US dollar millionaires reside in the United States, and China now has the second highest number of dollar millionaires. (If there are any curious Canadians reading this, Canada represents 3% of the world’s total.)

  

  The number of ultra-high-net-worth individuals — individuals with a net worth greater than $50 million — exhibits a similar pecking order. The US is by far the most dominant.

  

  Of course, dollar millionaires represent a small percentage of the world’s total population. Credit Suisse estimates that there are about 5.1 billion adults in the world. About 56.6% have a net worth under $10,000 and about 0.9% (okay, 1%) are millionaires. This 1% controls/owns about 44% of global wealth. Thinking back to figure 7 (above), consider this math: 50% of the world’s millionaires are now in the US and China.

  

  Fluctuations do happen, however. Australia lost some 124,000 millionaires last year largely because of a (-6%) drop in home prices, which tends to correlate pretty closely to the real asset part of household balance sheets. Australia shed about $443 billion in household wealth since 2018, making it the biggest loser in Credit Suisse’s report.

  

  The other thing that you may find interesting from this report is the wealth/GDP ratio that they use. Household wealth and GDP tend to correlate. But the ratio of wealth to GDP also has a tendency to increase as a country develops. This makes sense because things like the rule of law and access to capital tend to increase people’s willingness to invest/borrow. But in developed countries, it could also be a signal for asset inflation.

  

  If you’d like to download a PDF of the full wealth report, click here.

  Note: Credit Suisse’s definition of household wealth is your typical net worth calculation: assets (financial assets and real assets) minus liabilities. For most people, the real asset part is principally housing.

  Charts: Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2019

  2019.12.16

• Zoning in Silicon Valley, New Haven, and Austin

  

  Robert C. Ellickson’s recent paper, titled Zoning and the Cost of Housing: Evidence from Silicon Valley, Greater New Haven, and Greater Austin, really holds back when it comes to the shortcomings of zoning ordinances. Here’s an excerpt:

  Zoning, as practiced in much of the nation, gravely misallocates resources. Some distortions are micro, such as the mediocre siting of Anton Menlo housing [a project by Facebook], and the lack of walkable neighborhoods in New Haven suburbs. Others are macro. If Silicon Valley were more populous, it would be a world tech center even more attractive to IT workers. The misuse of zoning squanders land, adds to the nation’s carbon footprint, warps interstate migrants’ choices about where to reside, and helps price poor households out of wealthier neighborhoods that would offer better life prospects for their children.

  The paper focuses on three metropolitan areas: Austin, Silicon Valley, and New Haven. Of these three, Austin is the most permissive in terms of allowing new and denser housing. Silicon Valley and New Haven, by contrast, have done a great deal to limit intensification by adopting exclusionary policies.

  In 1970, home prices in Silicon Valley were only slightly above the national average. Today, they are by far the highest in the United States, which is, of course, partially a result of high demand (tech salaries) and low supply (zoning ordinances). Ellickson’s paper examines the effects of the latter.

  If you’d like to download a copy, click here.

  Photo by Carlos Delgado on Unsplash

  2019.12.14

• Missing middle on Toronto’s collector roads

  This recent Spacing article by Geoff Turnbull and Laurence Holland makes a compelling case for “missing middle” type development along Toronto’s collector roads. The idea being that we are already focusing on (and have policies for) infill along our Avenues and within our single family neighborhoods, but we have yet to pay attention to the scale of street that sits somewhere in between the two. Streets such as Hallam that were once commercial spines, but lost their economic purpose for a variety of reasons.

  Here’s a map, from the article, of Toronto’s collector roads:

  

  There are almost 800 kilometers of collector roads in the city. As the name starts to imply, these streets are designed to collect vehicles and funnel them toward arterial roads and “Avenues.” But this scale difference changes things and creates a kind of in-between condition. They’re less desirable from a residential standpoint (because they’re not as quiet and secluded), but they’re also not designed to become strong retail/commercial streets (despite the odd retail remnant). In fact, retail is probably prohibited on most. Which is why I like the idea of thinking of these streets differently.

  Of course, we have work to do in order to make this scale of development economically feasible, and the authors do acknowledge that. But the more we continue to talk about the future of our low-rise neighborhoods, the more that intensification starts to feel inevitable.

  2019.12.13

• Algorithmic home buying expands to Los Angeles

  

  Algorithmic home buying companies (or iBuyers) have now started to expand into Los Angeles. If you recall, most of these companies started in smaller markets where the homes are more homogenous, relatively inexpensive, and generally less liquid. Places like Phoenix.

  By tackling the second largest housing market in the US (after New York City), the algorithms of Opendoor, Redfin, and Zillow will now need to content with an older housing stock, greater variability, and higher values.

  All of these companies have increased their maximum offer price. The sweet spot for algorithmic home buying has typically been in the $150,000 to $300,000 range. Last year, two-thirds of all homes bought by iBuyers were in this range. I can’t imagine that gets you very much in LA.

  I keep expecting these companies to scale into something more beyond just iBuying and flipping. Perhaps we will see that happen once they establish themselves in country’s biggest markets.

  Photo by Josh Rose on Unsplash

  2019.12.08

• Current state of Toronto’s new condo market

  Ben Myers of Bullpen Research & Consulting was recently interviewed by Newinhomes.com about the state of Toronto’s new housing market. Ben is always interesting. And these are the sorts of things that I read in my spare time. So here’s an excerpt:

  The average price of popular new condo floor plans in the City of Toronto in October 2019 was approximately $1,275 per-square-foot (psf) and with growth of 3% a year, prices would hit $1,475 psf in 2024. I wouldn’t be surprised to see annual average growth of 4%, which would get you to $1,625 psf in five years in Toronto.

  This data was taken from BuzzBuzzHome and — by “popular new condo floor plans” — I believe he means that these are the floor plans that buyers tend to click on and review when they visit the site. So it’s a good indication of buyer demand.

  Here’s another quote that stuck out:

  Part of the reason that price growth has spiked is a rise in construction costs, development charges, and land prices – this cost-push inflation is passed on to consumers.

  That sounds right. And I have been writing about this phenomenon all year. Most of us can probably remember when $1,000+ psf was a high water mark for new construction condos. Now it’s pretty much a floor.

  2019.12.03

• Vancouver approves new rental housing policy

  

  New rental housing measures were approved by Vancouver City Council this week. I haven’t gone through the policies in the detail (you can do that here), but they aim to increase rental housing supply by doing things such as “pre-zoning” for 6-storeys on main streets and by allowing rental apartments to be built on some side streets (up to 150m away from arterial roads).

  Here’s an excerpt from the staff report:

  Enabling new rental housing in all neighbourhoods would support an increase in supply and choice. The incentive programs have concentrated secured market rental development in selected neighbourhoods and along arterial streets. This has been effective at creating larger multi-unit projects, but has created an inequitable environment, where renters have limited housing choice. Expanding program coverage into low density areas, areas zoned for single detached housing and non-arterial locations to allow for a greater mix of structure types and densities (e.g. townhouses, small apartment buildings) are important considerations moving forward.

  It is yet another data point for what I wrote about here — the loosening of single-family zoning. Turns out, it can be difficult to meet the demand for new housing when you set aside a large part — or most — of your land for low-rise single-family homes. And there seems to be growing acknowledgement of that on the part of cities.

  Photo by Aditya Chinchure on Unsplash

  2019.11.28