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

  • Thoughts on driving and parking

    Adrian Cook’s recent blog post about parking got me thinking about a few driving-related issues. Adrian points out that most condo buildings only allow owners to rent out their parking spots to people who already live in the building. But oftentimes, that’s not the customer. The people in the market for a downtown spot are the ones who commute into the city. And so what we are seeing in many downtowns is an oversupply of parking. Municipalities need to adjust their requirements.

    What I have found is that most, but not all, cities are now fairly flexible when it comes to urban parking requirements. They recognize the hypocrisy in trying to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating a certain number of parking spots. And so the driver is more typically the market. Empty nesters and families who buy larger suites — at least here in Toronto — still almost always want parking. And it’s a deal breaker for them. Sometimes they want 2 spots.

    Of course, there are also many instances where the location and unit mix of a project can support building absolutely no parking. There are lots of examples of the market excepting this, and so my view on parking is that there needs to be flexibility. Parking is typically a loss leader. The incentives are in place to build a hell of a lot less of it. But developers build it because they have to.

    Lastly, I find that discussions around car dependency tend to ignore that we have designed vast swaths of our cities to be positively inhospitable to people who aren’t driving. Adrian is right in that if you look at the modal splits for people who live in downtown Vancouver and downtown Toronto, you will find a lot less drivers. And that’s because the environment is much better suited to other forms of mobility. The solution starts with urban form.

    Photo by Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum on Unsplash

  • People are camping out in Opendoor’s homes

    Inc. Magazine just did a profile on Opendoor, which is a company that we have, of course, talked a lot about on this blog and that I continue to follow closely.

    It’s interesting to read about some of the challenges that they’ve been having as a result of their frictionless open houses. Since all you need is a smartphone, the company has been having the ongoing problem of people camping out in their listed homes. Sometimes for weeks. They’ve been working to address this by restricting the hours (6AM to 9PM) and by installing motion detectors. I am sure they will figure it out.

    The company is also having to be careful in terms of how it positions itself alongside realtors. There are many livelihoods at stake here. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

    During interviews, Wu has chosen his words carefully when discussing Opendoor’s potential to replace Realtors. “The reality with Realtors today,” he said on stage at the Startup Grind Global Conference in Silicon Valley in February, “is their role is shifting from project management–especially in our ecosystem, where we’re automating a lot of the processes–to advisement.”

    Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) has argued many times before on his blog that business model innovation is far more disruptive than technical innovation. I think it’s valuable to keep that in mind in the context of this discussion.

    Opendoor continues to charge a commission fee (sometimes a higher one than is typical), but it also makes money on the flipping of homes and it has plans to vertically integrate other aspects of the real estate business.

    Will that do it?

  • The childless city debate

    There’s an interesting debate happening online right now. A recent article by Derek Thompson (of the Atlantic) made the claim that today’s urban renaissance is great for young college graduates, but not so good for kids.

    Here’s a quick synopsis:

    Cities have effectively traded away their children, swapping capital for kids. College graduates descend into cities, inhale fast-casual meals, emit the fumes of overwork, get washed, and bounce to smaller cities or the suburbs by the time their kids are old enough to spell.

    Raising a family in the city [New York City] is just too hard. And the same could be said of pretty much every other dense and expensive urban area in the country.

    Michael Lewyn (of the Touro Law Center) responded to this argument with a post titled “the myth of the childless city.” While it is true that the US fertility rate is at an all-time low, the numbers — at least some of them — suggest that cities aren’t all that childless:

    Furthermore, not all urban cores are doing poorly in retaining children. Washington, D.C. had just under 32,000 children under 5 in 2010, and has over 45,000 today. In Philadelphia, the number of children under 5 increased from just over 101,000 in 2010 to 104,152 in 2018. Even in San Francisco (which, according to The Atlantic article, “has the lowest share of children of any of the largest 100 cities in the U.S.”), the number of under-5 children increased from 35,203 in 2010 to 39,722 in 2018.

    What I would be curious to see is a more granular look at where children are being raised within specific cities, and how that may, or may not, be changing over time. City boundaries can be broad.

  • Driving distance between two adjacent homes

    I came across this tweet by Sean Galbraith last night. You will probably need to click through to see the full extent of the photos. It is a series of images showing two back-to-back houses. The lands touch one another. But if you were to drive from one house to the other, it would take you about 18 minutes because of the area’s road network. Approximately 7.1 miles.

    This, of course, is far from urban. It would take over two hours to walk this same distance (assuming an average walking speed of 1 mile every 18 minutes). If you’re an urbanist, this is surely galling to you. But I think it’s also important to remember that this is, at least partially, a result of a consumer preference for dead end streets that limit through traffic.

  • Average living space per person in Hong Kong

    This recent NY Times article — which makes the case that the current protests in Hong Kong are at least partially a result of inequality — has a pair of interesting diagrams that speak to the city’s tight housing market.

    The first compares average living space per person in Hong Kong to Paris and New York City. New York City appears palatial compared to the illegally subdivided apartments that are discussed in the article.

    The second looks at housing affordability as a multiple of median household income. Hong Kong is over 20x. I am curious what median incomes were used for each of the cities. A small denominator makes the multiples look worse.

    In this chart, New York also includes the entire metropolitan area, which would help to improve its affordability ranking. So one could argue that this isn’t really a fair comparison.

    At the same time, none of this changes the fact that Hong Kong has some of, if not, the most expensive housing in the world.

    Images: NY Times

  • Toronto approves city-wide expansion of laneway suites

    This a big month for laneway (housing) advocates in Toronto. Last week, City Council voted in favor of expanding the policy provisions for laneway suites to all Neighbourhoods within the city. (Neighbourhood is a defined term in the city’s Official Plan.)

    Previously, the policies — which allow laneway suites to be built as-of-right — only applied to the Toronto & East York Districts. Here’s a copy of the recent staff report in case you would like more information.

    On Monday, my friend Alex Sharpe (of Lanescape) was on BNN Bloomberg talking about why this is a good thing for the city. Alex and the rest of the team at Lanescape have been instrumental in these policy changes.

    If you’re a Toronto homeowner with a property that fronts onto a laneway, I would encourage you to consider this opportunity. It’s a way to increase the value of your home and it’s a way to create more rental housing in this city.

  • Smart home market penetration in Canada and the US

    Here are the results of a Global Consumer Survey that was conducted in Canada this year (2019) and that asked respondents whether or not they own a smart home device. That is, a device that can be controlled via a smartphone / internet connection.

    Even with all of the concerns around privacy, virtual assistants (such as Amazon Alexa and Google Home) appear to be the most popular device with Canadians. Next are connected speakers and smart thermostats.

    The vast majority of respondents (68%) stated that they don’t own any smart home device. However, if you look at the trend lines for Canadian household penetration in the “smart home market,” this is naturally changing:

    Curiously, there appears to be a household penetration rate spread between Canada and the US, with the US exhibiting meaningfully higher numbers. Here is the US chart:

    Based on these charts, the lowest penetration rate appears to be for “energy management” devices, which would include anything that helps households reduce energy consumption. The rates are the lowest in the case of both Canada and the US.

    This is a bit unfortunate given that energy management is an important one. But it’s also one that isn’t best addressed with only a few smart devices. It should involve a more holistic approach to the way in which we design and build homes.

    All charts and data taken from Statista.

  • Supply is up and rents are down in Sydney

    The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that an oversupply of apartments has started to put downward pressure on rents and upward pressure on vacancy rates in the city. Here are a few excerpts from the article:

    Sydney is in the grip of an apartment building boom, with 30,880 multi-unit dwellings built last year, a record for any Australian city. There were 16 multi-unit projects finished in the first three months of 2019, adding another 1948 units.

    These numbers are flowing through Domain.com.au, where 17,500 units were listed for rent in June 2017, and ballooned to 32,680 listings in June 2019. The result has been landlords asking for $25 a week less median rent than last year.

    Sydney-wide rental vacancy rates have almost doubled from 1.7 per cent 2017 to 3.2 per cent this year. But on the upper and lower north shore, in the hills district and Sydney CBD, apartments are sitting vacant at more than twice this rate, SQM data shows.

    The narrative here is that you can build your way to lower rents. Make supply exceed demand, and this is what will happen.

    But in this case, something else has also impacted the demand curve: China.

    Beijing has made it harder to get money out of the country in recent years and their overall economy has slowed. China’s economy is thought to be growing at its slowest rate since 1992 (which is when the country started official record keeping).

    The above article suggests that about 80% of new construction apartments in Sydney were sold to investors over the last few years. More than a few were probably Chinese. Though I have no idea if that is an accurate number.

    What is unclear, to me, is whether this doubling of rental listings over the last two years is a result of previously bought supply simply making its way through the system, or if current market conditions have encouraged more owners to put their units up for rent.

    Whatever the case may be, supply is up and apartment rents appear to be coming off slightly in Sydney.

  • New York state law restricts condo conversions

    The State of New York just enacted a new law (on June 14, 2019) requiring that 51% of existing tenants agree to buy their apartments before a building can be converted into a condominium or a cooperative. There was previously no requirement for anyone to buy in order for a conversion to take place. Tenants who chose not to buy, could simply remain in the building as a renter.

    Supposedly, the real estate industry believes this new requirement will be a largely impossible threshold to meet, meaning that condo/co-op conversions could now be dead in NYC. There’s also an argument that conversions have historically helped many middle class New Yorkers buy a home since they sometimes (usually?) had the chance to buy their apartment below market at the time of a conversion.

    I’m not familiar enough with this space to be able to opine on the merits of these arguments, so I won’t. Perhaps some of you will in the comment section below. Instead, I will leave you all with a chart showing the median condo sale price in Manhattan over the last ~30 years (taken from the same WSJ article). I like seeing long(er) term charts. Maybe you do too.

  • Zoned for detached single-family housing

    We are in West Virginia now, where the only kind of housing that we have come across is — not surprisingly — low-density, detached, and single-family.

    Indeed, approximately 75% of the residential land across the entire US is estimated to be zoned for detached single-family homes. Using data from UrbanFootprint, the NY Times recently published a series of city maps outlining the percentage of land dedicated exclusively to this housing type.

    In some cases, such as on residential corner lots in Portland, duplexes are allowed. But generally speaking, the pink corresponds to detached single-family housing. About 15% of residential land in New York City is zoned for this, compared to about 94% of the land in San Jose.

    Interestingly enough, none of the residential land in Manhattan is zoned to accommodate detached single-family housing.