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

  • 17 years of inventory in Miami

    Miami has historically had a volatile housing market because of its position as a second-home destination and because of its dependency on Latin American buyers. There is perhaps no other housing market in the US with the same kind of overall reliance on capital from abroad. This recent article by Candace Taylor in the WSJ is yet another reminder that we are once again in one of those cycles. Below are two excerpts that I found interesting. Note the stats, particularly the last bit in bold. It is also a reminder that when housing supply exceeds demand, usually something happens: prices come down.

    At the same time, new condos launched just as the owners of older units looked to cash out. There were 691 condo sales in Miami Beach in the first quarter of 2019, down 24 percent from 909 in the first quarter of 2015. During the same period, single family homes sales dropped to 81 from 117. The threat of climate change has had some impact on Miami home buyers’ decisions. A 2018 study showed that the value of single-family homes near sea level in Miami-Dade County rose more slowly than that of homes at higher elevations. But agents said a greater threat to the high-end market is inventory buildup.

    Meanwhile, a strong dollar incentivizes international buyers to sell the units they already own, even at below-market prices. The result is a glut of condos for sale, both new and resale. In December 2018, there were 3,663 condo listings for sale in the greater downtown Miami area—more than double the 1,591 for sale in December of 2013, according to an Integra Realty Resources report. Sunny Isles, where new buildings include the 53-story Jade Signature, the Porsche Design Tower and the Turnberry Ocean Club, is estimated to have about 17 years of inventory of condos priced at $5 million and up.

  • More than 1 in 4 Americans now live alone

    The percentage of single-person households in the US has been steadily increasing since the 1960’s (though the rate of increase has moderated in recent decades). As of last year (2018), 28% of Americans lived alone, according to the US Census Bureau. So about 1 in 4 households. This is in comparison to 13.1% of households in 1960.

    Here is a chart from a recent WSJ article on the topic:

    Not surprisingly, this is changing how marketers target households. Affluent, single-person households in urban areas have proven to be a boon to product makers because they tend to spend more per person and they tend to value time > money. Of course, this phenomenon also has implications for those of us who work as city builders.

    For more historical household tables from the US Census Bureau, click here.

  • US cities with the highest millennial homeownership rates

    Across the 50 largest metro areas in the US, about 31.9% of millennials — those aged 18 to 34 — owned a home as of 2017. And according to recent census data (via the Redfin), only 5 of these cities had a millennial homeownership rate higher than 35%. They are as follows:

    The top spot goes to Salt Lake City, which sits at just over 40%. It also has the highest share of businesses owned by millennials at 8.4%. Not surprisingly, the cities on this list all have relatively affordable home prices, with Detroit being the most affordable.

    I think you could interpret this list as a bit of a leading indicator for US cities on the rise. Affordability, and walkability, may be the draws today, but as millennials lay down roots, start businesses and earn more money, I am sure we’ll see these cities transform even further.

  • Beautiful cities are growing faster than ugly ones

    People move to cities for a whole host of reasons, whether it be for more money, more affordable housing, and/or better weather. The fastest growing cities in the US, for example, tend to be in the south where it’s warmer and where housing supply is more elastic. However, we also know that “consumer leisure amenities” increasingly factor into this decision.

    A new research paper by Gerald A. Carlino (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) and Albert Saiz (MIT) has tried to quantify this relationship by looking at the perceived beauty of a place. To do this, they analyzed the number of tourist visits and the number of “crowdsourced picturesque locations” in a metro area. Read: Instagrammable moments.

    What they found was that beauty, not surprisingly, matters (much like it does in other facets of life). Between 1990-2010, metro areas that were perceived as being “twice as picturesque” experienced greater population growth — about 10 percentage points higher. These metro areas also attracted a higher percentage of educated individuals and experienced greater housing appreciation.

    If you’d like to download a copy of Beautiful city: Leisure amenities and urban growth, click here.

  • These 3 things happened after Portland enacted inclusionary zoning

    On February 1, 2017, an inclusionary zoning ordinance came into effect in Portland, mandating that all new residential projects with 20 or more units dedicate a portion of the building to affordable housing.

    For the first year, the requirement was 8% of all units for households earning 60% of the Area Median Income or 16% of all units for households earning 80% of the AMI. I’m not sure if it was or is possible to do a blend of the two income levels.

    After the first year, the requirement was supposed to step up to 10% and 20% of all units, respectively. But that step up was never enacted, which had many industry analysts arguing that it was a clear signal the ordinance was not performing as intended.

    According to Joe Cortright of City Observatory (which is based in Portland), the new ordinance largely resulted in 3 things happening:

    (1) Developers rushed to get new applications in during the transition period so that they would not be subjected to the new IZ rules; (2) applications increased for projects with less than 20 units (avoid the rules by building smaller); and (3), following the initial transition surge, building permit applications, as a whole, dropped off.

    This last point is what usually comes up in debates around inclusionary zoning. Does the requirement to build affordable housing actually reduce overall housing supply?

    I’ve written about this before, but the math is pretty simple. Inclusionary zoning policies are a drag on revenue and a direct cost to the project. What that means is that something else will need to give in order for the numbers to balance.

    That could come in the form of lower costs (such as an impact fee abatement) or in higher rents on the balance of the units. But this latter approach is easier said than done. Sometimes you need to wait for the market to “catch up”, which could be what some developers in Portland are doing.

    They’re waiting for housing to get more expensive — overall — so they can then offset the pro forma drag from the affordable units.

  • Landed is helping teachers buy homes

    The average salary of a teacher in the United States was approximately $61,730 last year. This can make homeownership in high cost areas a challenge.

    Here is a chart from Curbed:

    Landed is trying to solve this problem by offering downpayment assistance to “essential professionals” — starting first with teachers — so that they can buy homes in and near the communities that they serve.

    The way it works is pretty simple.

    They’ll contribute up to half of a traditional 20% downpayment — so 10% of the value of the home — in exchange for a 25% share in any future gains, or losses.

    Put differently, for every 1% that Landed contributes, it takes 2.5% of any future appreciation (or depreciation). However, on an equity basis, they are actually putting up 50% of the required cash (in the maximum scenario) in order to get 25% of any future gains.

    There’s no monthly payment associated with Landed’s money, but it does need to be repaid at the end of 30 years or when the homeowner exits the agreement, whichever comes first. Homeowners are free to repay Landed at any time should they decide to sell the property or they just want to pay them out.

    Landed pitches the service as another version of “the bank of mom and dad.” And for many prospective homeowners, I am sure that it makes all the difference in the world.

    At first glance, it would seem that each homeowner also benefits from a kind of positive leverage. They only put up 50% of the required equity, but they get to enjoy 75% of the potential gains. However, each homeowner is also responsible for 100% of the carrying costs.

    I ran a couple of quick return scenarios, assuming a $500,000 purchase price and a 10 year hold, in order to test whether Landed or the homeowner would receive a higher IRR once the property gets sold.

    I didn’t carry any transaction costs, but I did factor in principal recapture, as well as utilities, insurance, and maintenance.

    My rough numbers suggest that it depends on the annual rate of appreciation. If appreciation stays close to the rate of inflation, it could tip in favor of Landed because they don’t put out any money after t = 0.

    But at higher rates of appreciation, the homeowner starts to benefit from the favorable 75/25 split at the end of the hold period.

    Either way, Landed is providing a service to people who may not otherwise be able to afford to buy a home. That has value. Here’s some more information on how it works, in case you’re interested.

  • Redfin is rolling out an online purchase option for homes

    There’s a lot of money at work right now trying to reinvent the way that homes are bought and sold. Perhaps the most popular trend is “instant buying” or algorithmic home buying. I have been writing about this for years, mostly because of Opendoor. But now there are lots of companies competing in this space. With this model, home sellers get the benefit of an almost immediate sale, though usually it’s at a slightly lower price.

    Redfin, on the other hand, is returning to something that it first tried out back in 2006: a buy now button on its online listings. It failed back then. But maybe it was simply too early. The feature allows unrepresented buyers — that is, buyers without an agent — to make online offers. Naturally, it’s far from a single click process. But when accepted, the seller ends up paying about half the amount of commission.

    According to the New York Times, the company started testing the feature in late March in the Boston area. Of the 120 homes listed on Redfin with a “start an offer” button, 5 ended up being purchased via an online bid. That’s more than I would have expected. But Redfin positions these offers as being the stronger option because they save sellers money. There’s also an option to tour the home on your own.

    Given this initial response, the company is now working to roll out this feature nationally, market by market. Is this the future of home buying?

  • Laneway suites all across the city

    As of August 2018, the City of Toronto has allowed laneway suites (accessory dwelling units) to be built as-of-right in the Toronto and East York area of the city (subject to meeting some criteria).

    This was a tremendous step forward for the city. And I know a number of people who are currently taking advantage of these new planning permissions.

    Toronto is now looking at expanding these permissions across the entire city and they have just started their community engagement phase. The first public meeting took place today and the next three will be taking place over the course of this month. Click here for the when and where.

    This is a natural extension of the policies that have already been put in place around laneway suites and I’m excited to see this moving forward.

    For those of you who already own property in Toronto & East York and are considering building a laneway suite, there are two programs that you should be aware of.

    The first one allows eligible property owners to defer development charges on the new secondary dwelling unit for up to 20 years. This is meaningful. And the second is a $50k forgivable loan if you make the laneway suite an affordable rental for at least 15 years. (The cap is the City of Toronto Average Market Rent.)

    I still remember what happened when I tried to build a laneway house almost 10 years ago. I was told, by the city, that a house cannot be built behind another house. I knew that would change. Now look at how far we’ve come.

    Image: Lanescape

  • How are condos in Canada used?

    Jens von Bergmann (data analyst and mathematician); Nathanael Lauster (sociologist); and Douglas Harris (law professor) have been working since 2018 on a study of how condominiums are used and occupied across Canada. The goal is to use the results to better inform public and academic debate.

    They recently presented some of their early findings at the National Housing Conference in Ottawa and have since made that information public. It is still a work in progress, but already there are some interesting takeaways. To start, here is a chart showing occupied housing units in Canada and in select CMAs:

    Not surprisingly, Canada is broadly speaking a nation of single-detached houses. But in our three largest cities — Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver — apartments/condominiums are doing a lot of the heavy lifting.

    Vancouver has the highest proportion of condominiums. It is a geographically constrained metro area and it is one of the first cities in the country to adopt condominiums as a housing tenure. And in Montreal, there are more apartments under 5 storeys than there are single-detached houses. Not surprising. There’s no “missing middle” in this city.

    But the really interesting question is, how are these condominiums being used and occupied? It’s a challenging question to answer, which is why it’s so often debated, but here’s what the researchers have found so far:

    The owner and renter categories are self-explanatory. Temporary, which is the least common type of tenure, is where the owner has declared their principal residence as being somewhere else. In other words, the condominium is a second home.

    The vacant category is effectively that city’s condominium rental vacancy rate. These are condominium units which are empty, but that are at the same time listed for rent. There are relatively few of these. In Toronto and Vancouver they’re virtually non-existent in this dataset (2016).

    Finally, we get to unoccupied units. This one is tricky and the researchers aren’t exactly clear on what is driving this number. They chalk it up, at least partially, to the flexible nature of condominiums. For example, it could be empty because the unit is switching from owner-occupied to rental, or vice versa.

    That said, it is very interesting to note that Toronto and Vancouver actually have the lowest percentage of unoccupied condominium units. This may be surprising to some of you given the public discourse around investor units in these two cities.

    Generally, they found that in Canada’s three largest metro areas, the following rule of thumb seems to apply: For every 10 condominium units built, 6 will become owner-occupied, 3 will enter the rental stock, and 1 will go unoccupied. Does that seem right to you?

    If you’d like to dig into the methodology that the researchers used, you can do that over here at Mountain Doodles. All of the charts and data used in this post were taken from there.

  • What’s in a roof?

    Over the weekend I stumbled upon this illustrated Medium post by Alfred Twu comparing sloped and flat roofs. The argument is that these two roof types are coded. In this part of the world, at least, sloped roofs signal low-rise “house” and flat roofs signal big city “high-rise.”

    I’m not yet convinced of this association with height, or of all the claims made in the article. Did New York City really make the flat roof commonplace in our cities? But the idea that a roofline can trigger certain associations — or even become divisive — is a fascinating one.

    Take, for example, Am Fischtal in Berlin. On one side of the street you have, still to this day, homes with flat roofs. And on the other side you have homes with sloped roofs. This clean divide is the result of a supposed “roof war” that took place during the Weimar Republic.

    At this moment in time in the suburbs of Berlin, the kind of roof you chose to live under was a proclamation of your political orientation. I’m not sure roofs have as much gravitas as they did in the 1920’s on Am Fischtal, but they still do say something.

    Image: Alfred Twu