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

  • Who is going to buy the homes vacated by Baby Boomers?

    The Wall Street Journal estimates that, from now until about 2037, roughly 21 million homes in the United States will be vacated by seniors. To put this number into perspective, it’s about 25% of the US for-sale housing stock and more than double the amount of new homes that were sold during the 1998 to 2008 housing boom. That number was about 10 million (see below).

    This is part of the normal cycle of housing, but in this particular instance, there’s concern that the new generation won’t be there to backfill these homes, or least not in the same way. For one, there are more boomers than there are Gen Xers. So right away there’s a potential gap. But on top of this, the next in line don’t appear to necessarily have the same preferences in housing type and location.

    As someone who would fall into the 65.9 million birth bucket highlighted in deep mustard (had I been born in the US), I can tell you that I am far less interested in many of the housing products (real estate speak) / typologies (architect speak) popularized by the generation ahead of me. Whether my opinion is representative is, of course, debatable.

    Anecdotally, I can also say that I know many boomers who have started making real estate decisions based on the assumption that demand for certain types of housing will be tepid going forward. This is not to say that some of these communities won’t be able to reposition themselves if it comes to that. But there is uncertainty.

    Images: WSJ

  • Dubai’s housing crisis

    This week Bloomberg reported that Dubai is facing a “housing disaster” as a result of overbuilding. There’s simply too much supply coming onto the market. About 30,000 units are expected to be completed this year, which the industry believes is about 2x actual demand. As a result, the industry — yes, the development industry — is calling for a 1-2 year pause on all new construction in the city so that the excess units can be absorbed and demand can catch up.

    I’m not an expert on the Dubai market. And I’ve only been to the city once. But my sense is that there are relatively few barriers to new supply, especially compared to markets like Toronto and San Francisco. And so it’s not surprising to hear that supply is and has been outstripping demand. According to Bloomberg, the market peaked about 5 years ago.

    For the industry to call for a moratorium on new construction it must mean that there’s concern of a prolonged housing slump and perhaps even some sort of systemic collapse. But if the objective is more affordable housing, than you might argue that Dubai has been doing a pretty good job of that. Here is a global city with a “housing crisis” on the opposite end of the spectrum. So what is it that makes Dubai different than, say, London or San Francisco?

    Photo by David Rodrigo on Unsplash

  • Eliminating single-family zoning

    There is something happening in many North American cities right now. We are starting to question the supremacy of zoning for only single-family homes.

    This past summer, the state of Oregon passed policy requiring cities of 25,000 people or more to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes within their single-family home neighborhoods. Minneapolis is poised to do something similar with its Minneapolis 2040 plan (though it has been contentious). And, of course, here in Toronto we recently rolled out laneway suites all across the city. Small scale multi-family dwellings are also already permissible in some areas (though few are being built).

    Some are calling this a YIMBY movement. But however you want to define it, it’s an acknowledgement that, if the goal is to built up instead of out, perhaps it’s time we look at the parts of our cities with the lowest population densities. I would also add that following my recent post on Paris vs. Vancouver, many seemed to gravitate (in the comments) toward the Parisian model — even if it did result in over 50,000 people per square kilometer. Density, it would appear, is okay.

    While positive, it remains to be seen whether these policy changes will result in a meaningful increase in housing supply. And a lot of that will come down to the details. As I have said before on the blog, the math can be challenging on these sorts of smaller projects, which is why you have smart people proposing things like an “inverse density” rule to help encourage more smaller scale development.

    But as the saying goes, sometimes you need to crawl before you can walk. And, if nothing else, there’s certainly symbolic value to what seems to be taking hold across North America right now.

  • Minimum project size — how small is too small?

    Many, or perhaps most, developers I know have a minimum project size that they will work on. That’s why you’ll hear people say, “No, that project is too small. I need at least X square feet or Y number of units.” Given that smaller scale development such as laneway housing and “the missing middle” are so in vogue today, I thought I would discuss some of the reasons why scale matters.

    But first, it’s worth mentioning that “laneway suites,” as we have structured them here in Toronto, are intended to be built by individual homeowners and not by developers. The lots can’t be severed and most lots will yield less than 1,000 square feet. So this is a bit of a unique circumstance. As most of you know, I am a big supporter of this initiative.

    When you get into larger developer-led projects, it’s a different ball game. For one, it’s hard to even find sites. And good luck if you need to deal with multiple owners as part of an assembly. Most landowners have pricing expectations that do not even remotely align with “missing middle” level densities.

    But assuming you’ve been able to find land at a reasonable price, you still have to contend with the fact that projects have a lot of fixed costs, as well as diseconomies of scale. In other words, there are schedule, cost, and resourcing considerations that won’t change no matter how big or small you go. It’s still going to take this long and cost this much, and you’re still going to need a set of humans to manage it through.

    This can then create a situation where there’s not enough margin for error. The project is simply too small to absorb any shocks, such as an unforeseen delay or an unforeseen groundwater concern that is now adding millions to your project budget. There’s a lot of risk with development and it’s prudent to have contingency room. That’s harder to do with smaller projects.

    The other problem developers run into with smaller projects is that the construction subtrades also tend to think of them as smaller projects. They have their own set of fixed costs and margins to worry about. So unless you happen to catch them with an opening in their schedule, you run the risk of them telling you they’re too busy or them giving you a stinky price, which is just another way of them saying they don’t want the job.

    On top of all this, there’s minimum project size inflation. If capital is not a constraint, there’s a tendency to want to do bigger projects (see above). And because the cost of everything keeps going up, it’s simultaneously getting harder and harder to make smaller projects pencil; unless you, maybe, go ultra luxury and ultra exclusive. But that’s kind of the opposite goal of this whole “missing middle” movement, is it not?

    Photo by JOHN TOWNER on Unsplash

  • Average household size in the US is now increasing

    Newly released data from the US Census Bureau has just revealed that the average household size is increasing for the first time in over 160 years. Put differently, the formation of new households has started to trail overall population growth. And that is causing the average number of people per household to increase.

    In 1790, there were about 5.79 people per household in the United States. That number has been in decline pretty much since then, though there was a slight increase in the decade that began in 1850. Last year (2018), the number grew to 2.63 people per household (2.71 for owner occupied households and 2.48 for renter occupied households).

    Here are two charts from Chris Fry’s recent piece at the Pew Research Center:

    So what is causing this?

    Well, we know that US fertility rates aren’t on the rise. In fact, they’re generally viewed as hitting record lows. I say “generally” because there are a number of different ways to measure fertility. There’s the general fertility rate, completed fertility, the total fertility rate, and others. But we are seeing some alignment here: fertility rates are down.

    One probable explanation is the fact that more Americans are living multi-generationally. According to the Pew Research Center, 1 out of every 5 Americans lived in such a household as of 2016. Part of this may be a result of immigration. Asian and hispanic populations are more likely to live in a multi-generational household compared to white people.

    Another demographic trend is the increase in people living in shared quarters, whether that might be with a roommate or someone else. This is interesting because it suggests that there’s an affordability constraint. Are people being forced to “double up?” The current co-living trend is at least partially because of this.

    These are all noteworthy trends because household formation is viewed as “the underlying driver of long-term demand for new housing.” I am assuming that more people per household also means less square footage per person.

    Graphs: Pew Research Center

  • Junction House ground breaking

    The Junction House team is excited to announce that construction will start this fall and that our ground breaking ceremony will be held at 11AM on Saturday, October, 19th. Mark your calendars.

    It will take place at our Sales Gallery — 2720 Dundas St W. This will be one of the last opportunities to see the award-winning Junction House Sales Gallery before it is demolished in preparation for construction.

    There will be photo opportunities for everyone in attendance, and so we encourage you to bring your phones/cameras. You’re welcome to extend this invitation to family and friends, but kindly RSVP by sending an email to info@junctionhouse.ca.

    We look forward to seeing you there.

  • New rental supply needs to double in Toronto

    This week, RBC Economics published a study on Canada’s rental market where they argued that the pace of new supply needs to at least double in markets like Toronto in order to meet future housing demand and balance the market. Similar things, I’m sure, could be said about many other housing markets around the world.

    The report pegs the current rental housing deficit in Toronto at about 9,100 units:

    And because they believe that the cost of ownership is pushing more people into rentals, the number of renter households is expected to grow at an average rate of 22,200 units per year in Toronto.

    If you take 22,200 units per year over the next two years, and add in the current deficit of 9,100 rental units, you get to a total count of 53,500 rental units. This is what RBC Economics believes must be delivered to the market in order to restore equilibrium, and decrease the upward pressure on rents.

    Rental units are, of course, delivered to the market in two main ways. There’s purpose-built rentals and there are for-sale units that end up as rental housing. But even if you amalgamate both of these tenures, we are not building enough housing.

    Against this backdrop, I find it curious that developers are so often vilified. Earlier this week, I saw Jennifer Keesmaat tweet out that — as we ready for this fall’s federal election — any sensible housing plan must move away from our current for profit housing delivery model.

    Who, then, will build these 53,500 rental units? That part wasn’t clear to me.

  • Fees on homes

    A colleague of mine sent me this Bloomberg article today and said, “Here’s an article about things you already know.” The article cites a recent report by Altus Group that compared government-related fees on new housing across Canada and the U.S. What they discovered will not surprise any of you who are in the industry: Toronto has some of the highest government-imposed charges on new homes.

    For new condo apartments, the report found that government charges can add up to as much as C$124,582 per unit. That’s about 50% higher than the average unit in the U.S. and about 30% higher than the average unit in Canada (see above chart for the list of cities). While all of us in the industry can appreciate this, I don’t think most homeowners and tenants understand this. Hopefully they’re reading this post.

    Chart: Bloomberg

  • Raising kids in the city

    This week, Matthew Yglesias of Vox makes the case for raising kids in the city. Spoiler: Driving sucks. Cities have lots to do. And parks can be better than lawns. However, he also talks about why this proposition is becoming increasingly difficult for many families. Here are a couple of excerpts:

    Now the father of a 4-year-old son, I live in Washington, DC, a city that is, mercifully, marginally more affordable than New York, and I wouldn’t want to raise a family any place other than the city.

    But unfortunately, families are disappearing from American cities even as city living in general has become fashionable again for those who can afford it.

    Children cost money. And they take up space. And urban space has become much more expensive — repelling growing families. This suits the proclivities of smug suburbanites just fine, but as someone who grew up in a big city in the 1980s and 1990s when city living was both less fashionable and more affordable, it seems like a tragedy to me.

    I didn’t grow up in the city. Though, I spent time in apartments and other higher density housing. And I don’t have kids. But I find this topic interesting. It’s also an important one. I don’t believe that the childless city is a good thing.

    For the full article, click here.

  • How homeowners cause gentrification

    Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron, Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic, and author of, Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in New Urban America.

    In his recent piece in Beyond Chron, he makes the argument that, from San Francisco to New York, homeowners who oppose new multi-unit housing are in fact the ones driving gentrification.

    He admits that there are some exceptions and cites San Francisco’s SOMA neighborhood as a place that became upscale because of new development. (I think it’s more nuanced than that.)

    But the key point is that there countless examples of neighborhoods changing their socioeconomic position without the presence of new development. (There’s investment, but at a smaller or individual scale.)

    Here’s an excerpt from Shaw’s article:

    Banning apartments from single family home neighborhoods limits new residents to those who can afford to purchase a home. Banning new multi-unit construction also artificially reduces supply, driving up home prices for existing owners.

    That’s how most San Francisco neighborhoods, and those in other high-housing cost cities, gentrified. It happened with little or no multi-unit construction. Yet homeowners have adeptly shifted blame for the gentrification of urban neighborhoods from their own land use policies to builders—even when no building has occurred.

    But in the end, do these details even matter? What we have here are competing self-interests. Developers, obviously, want to build. And many people benefit when this does happen. But others don’t see it that way.