Tag: housing

• Rent control and road pricing — economics is the study of choice

  Yesterday’s post tried to pit politics against the realities of how we know cities and economics work. So today, I thought I would share a set of memos from Howard Marks (of Oaktree Capital) titled Economic Reality, Political Reality (which he refers to as an oxymoron), and Shall We Repeal the Laws of Economics?

  In this last one, he specifically talks about things like price gouging (starting with the grocery industry) and apartment rent controls. Each is worth a full read when you have the time, but here I’ll leave you all with a few city building-related thoughts.

  Marks describes economics as the study of choice. And within these choices, there are many complicated moving pieces and second-order consequences. Take, for example, rent control in New York City. What rent control does is stop the free market from being able to freely set rents. The result:

  A person in favor of this arrangement would argue that it maintains affordability and diversity. What it means in purely economic terms is that some people who couldn’t afford to live in New York City if rents were set by free-market forces are able to live there if they’re lucky enough to secure an apartment with regulated rent. But other people who would like to live in New York City and can afford higher rents can’t do so because there are no apartments for them. And lastly, landlords that have apartments that are somehow unregulated can command higher rents than would be the case if additions to the supply of apartments weren’t being discouraged. It’s a matter of personal philosophy whether this is good or bad. But clearly, the laws of economics and the actions of free markets aren’t at work in New York City. Someone in government is making the decisions.

  Much like inclusionary zoning in the case of new housing, the tradeoffs with regulated rents are that you get (1) less overall housing supply and (2) more expensive prices for the people that can pay market rents.

  You could argue, as Marks suggests, that these are acceptable outcomes; but regardless of your opinion, there are real consequences to this policy decision. There’s no such thing as a “free lunch” in economics, and consequently there’s no such thing as no-cost affordable housing. The question is: Who pays?

  Going back to the topic of traffic congestion from yesterday’s post, Toronto’s general reluctance to implement any form of road or congestion pricing is also an economic choice. We have priced our roads so cheaply that demand is always going to outstrip supply. And this is expected. What we are experiencing today is a natural market outcome.

  Targeting bike lanes as part of the problem is meant to counter this by increasing road supply. Less bike lanes means more space for cars, right? But the second-order consequence of this choice is that you push people off their bikes (which take up less road space) and into cars (which take up more road space). So demand is also likely to increase.

  The stark reality of solving traffic congestion is that it will require greater change. It will mean fewer people driving, more people taking transit and biking, and the people who do continue to drive will have to pay more for it.

  Of course, this is not what any politician wants to talk about. As Marks says: “In the world of politics, there can be limitless benefits and something for everyone. But in economics, there are only tradeoffs.” The tradeoff we have decided to make is cheap roads in exchange for crippling traffic congestion.

  2024.09.22

• Remember unfunded inclusionary zoning?

  Over the weekend, we spoke about how the “GTA condo market is in a state of economic lockdown.” What this generally means is that the math isn’t making sense to build new condominiums. And so the market is necessarily pausing.

  We spoke about what this will likely mean for supply in the coming years, but I think it’s also interesting to talk about this in the context of something else: unfunded inclusionary zoning.

  As a reminder, inclusionary zoning is, in its most basic form, a requirement to build a certain amount of affordable housing as part of new housing developments. And what I mean by “unfunded” is that there are no subsidies or other incentives being provided to the project.

  This means that the cost of providing this housing — and there is an additional cost — needs to be shouldered by the project, which ultimately means the market-rate units need to pay for it.

  Which is why if you look at most policy studies, you’ll often find recognition that, because of this economic reality, IZ tends to work better in areas where home prices/rents are higher. And again, that’s because the market-rate homes need to shoulder the cost.

  We have questioned, many times, on this blog, whether this is the right approach to delivering affordable housing, but I think this question becomes even more critical in our current market environment.

  If the entire market is, for the most part, in a state of economic lockdown, should we really be layering on additional costs and making it broadly more difficult to build any sort of new housing? It seems counterintuitive.

  For more on this topic, check out this recent Sightline article by Dan Bertolet.

  2024.07.29

• Toronto approves new Rental Housing Supply Program

  This past week, Toronto City Council approved the launch of a new affordable housing initiative called the Rental Housing Supply Program. Here’s the agenda item if you’d like to dive into the details and read some of the supporting reports. There are a number of components to the program, and one of them is a subsidy that will be administered by way of a forgivable interest-free loan:

  Subject to the adoption of the Rental Housing Supply Program, the City will continue to support RGI and affordable rental homes through the allocation of up to $260,000 per eligible affordable rental and RGI home. This is the maximum allowable funding allocation under the Rental Housing Supply Program. Actual funding per project will be determined based on the evaluation of applications on a site-by-site basis, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer, and based on project parameters and additional sources of funding that can be leveraged to support the project’s financial viability. These funds will be provided as interest free forgivable loans to eligible and approved projects and will be tied to milestones and requirements in agreements with housing providers.

  Total funding for the program is $351 million. And the intent is that these funds will be distributed in the near term to 18 affordable housing projects in the city, all of which are expected to start construction sometime between now and the end of 2025. In total, this is anticipated to create about 6,000 new affordable rental homes. That’s a good thing.

  Now, I don’t know anything about these projects. I don’t know if $260k is the right figure. And I don’t know if a forgivable interest-free loan is the exact right mechanism to deliver these funds. But what the program does do is recognize this: Deeply affordable housing cannot be built without some form of subsidy.

  Developers are often criticized for only building expensive housing. But the reality is that developers are, for the most part, takers of market pricing. In other words, we can’t just decide to build for less. We can reduce build and finish quality to get costs down, but at a certain point, the cost to build is the cost to build.

  And if that cost to build isn’t what the market would view as affordable, then you’re not going to get there without a subsidy. No developer is going to build if their expected revenues are less than their costs. Directionally, that’s what this new program appears to recognize.

  2024.06.29

• Approved but unbuilt

  Recent data from the City of Toronto indicates that there were approximately 106,000 new residential units completed between 2019 and 2023. That averages to about 26,500 homes per year.

  At the same time, Toronto is reporting that 258,397 units are currently approved for development and that 436,421 units are currently under review. The former means that the projects have been approved and that a building permit has been applied for or has been issued. And the latter means that the units are still under review or under appeal.

  These feel like staggering numbers. If we were to use the same completion rate as 2019-2023, it would take over 26 years to build these 694,818 new units (homes approved + under review).

  However, I think it’s safe to assume that not all of these homes will be built; at least not in the short term. Many (perhaps most) of these projects are simply going to evaporate in the current market environment. They’re unfinanceable.

  Because that’s the thing, zoning approved does not necessarily equal built and occupied. And right now, in this market, these two things feel like they’re diverging. Toronto grew by about 207,000 people between 2019 and 2023. And it built about half of this number in new homes.

  When we look back at the next four years, I suspect that this housing supply number will be noticeably lower. This is despite the staggering headline numbers.

  2024.06.13

• The US is building a lot of apartments right now

  As of November 2023, it was estimated that there were 988,000 homes under construction in multi-family buildings containing 5 or more units. This is in comparison to 680,000 single-family homes, according to US Census data. (Looking at the below graph, it’s also interesting to see how the supply of single-family homes dropped off after the global financial crisis and multi-family apartments took off.)

  

  All of this means that in 2024, the US is on track to complete more apartments than it has in many many decades. In fact, exactly similar to what we experienced here in Toronto, if you want to find a comparable multi-family supply number, you need to go as far back as the 1970s (see below). Of course, the US had fewer people back then, and so on a per capita basis, it was building more housing.

  

  Still, all of this new supply is having an impact. Apartment List recently published its national rent report, over here. And overall, it found that:

  Rent increases are currently being moderated by a robust construction pipeline expected to deliver a decades-high number of new apartment units in 2024.

  More specifically, they found that the cities with the most supply are now seeing the largest rent declines:

  Many of the steepest year-over-year declines remain concentrated in Sun Belt cities that are rapidly expanding their multifamily inventory, such as Austin (-7.4 percent year-over-year), Raleigh (-4.4 percent), and Orlando (-3.9 percent).

  If you’re an apartment developer, this is not what you want to see. It means that increased competition is creating downward pressure on rents and that vacancy rates are probably rising. But if you’re someone looking to rent an apartment, this is exactly what you want to see. You want more affordable housing. And so, as a consequence, you want more homes to be built. Because when supply outstrips demand, this is what you get.

  Charts: Apartment List

  2024.05.17

• Housing follows money

  One argument that you might be able to make is that home prices follow urban density. New York City, for example, is dense. And homes in New York City tend to be more expensive than those in, oh I don’t know, rural Canada. So with this, you might conclude that development and density are bad — it makes housing more expensive. But then there’s places like San Jose, California. It’s not very dense, and yet it has some of if not the most expensive housing in the US.

  Well, it turns out that housing density and median housing values don’t actually exhibit a particularly strong correlation. A better and much stronger relationship can be found in what Kasey Klimes explains, here, in this excellent post, which is that home prices more accurately follow incomes. In other words, the more high paying jobs that exist in a market, the more likely that housing will be expensive.

  Here is what that looks like for US metros over 1 million people:

  

  The above chart compares median home value to aggregate income per unit of housing. And here, Kasey discovers an r-value of 0.9, which suggests that “over 81% of median home values in large metros can be attributed to aggregate income per unit of housing.” This explains why San Jose, and San Francisco, are such outliers. They have very high incomes for every unit of available housing, despite the former being not all that dense.

  Okay, so now that we know this, how do we make housing more affordable? One option is to just make people poorer. If you reduce incomes per unit of housing, then home prices will, almost certainly, go down. And this is why poorer cities tend to have more affordable housing. But this is obviously suboptimal. The better option is to keep people wealthy and simply increase the denominator in “aggregate income per unit of housing.”

  Meaning: build more housing!

  Chart: Kasey Klimes

  2024.04.12

• 41 million

  It seems like just yesterday that I wrote about Canada’s population surpassing 40 million people. Because today, some 9 months later, we’re already over 41 million.

  Since 2000, we are the fastest growing country in the G-7:

  

  This is, in many ways, a positive thing. But it’s also a serious problem if, among other things, we don’t build enough new housing (source):

  In 2013, Canada ranked 13th out of 170 countries in meeting the basic needs of citizens, according to data tracked by Social Progress Imperative. By 2023, it had fallen to 39th, in large part because of a lack of affordable housing.

  For more on this topic, here is a recent article from Bloomberg talking broadly about Canada’s declining social safety net.

  Chart: Bloomberg

  2024.03.28

• FYI, new home coming soon

  This is not a post about laneway housing. Okay, it sort of is. But there’s a broader point to discuss. Recently, a local Toronto newspaper ran this article talking about how a bunch of people are upset that their neighbor is building an as-of-right garden suite. Here’s an excerpt:

  “The members of the community know that they can’t stop the building of this ‘garden suite’. However, they want to change the bylaw to ensure that future ‘garden suites’ can’t be built without community consultation and an environmental assessment,” said a news release from a number of residents in the area that was sent to Toronto media outlets including Beach Metro Community News last week.

  This raises some interesting questions.

  For one, what would be the purpose of this community consultation? Is it just a “Hey, I’m going to be building a garden suite” and then homeowners go do it exactly how they want anyway? Or, would it be an extensive community engagement process where homeowners would be expected to gather feedback, submit a report to the city, and consider design changes?

  And, would this apply to all low-rise housing? In other words, would all homeowners need to consultant their neighbors and do an environmental assessment before pulling a building permit? What if someone just wants to build a small extension or a shed? Or, are we only talking about laneway and garden suites?

  I’m not really sure what the exact intentions are here — besides delaying new housing — but I can tell you that it’s a terrible idea.

  Laneway and garden suites should never require community consultation and/or an environmental assessment. I mean, this is the whole point of allowing them as-of-right. It’s so you don’t have to do these things and you can go straight to a building permit. This is way too small of a housing type to burden with obstacles.

  In fact, the same is true of larger housing types. In my opinion, conventional mid-rise buildings should not have to go through a full rezoning and they should not have to consult with the community. We already know what these buildings look like. We know that they make for great homes. And yet they’re our most expensive housing type to build.

  Removing barriers (and reducing project durations) is a sure-fire way to make them cheaper. Especially in a higher interest rate environment.

  2024.03.20

• Rear-yard suites and secondary suites built in Toronto over the last decade

  Here is a mapping, from the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, showing the number of “closed” building permits issued in Toronto between 2013 and 2023 for both rear-yard suites (laneway houses and garden suites) and secondary suites (like basement apartments).

  

  A “closed” building permit probably means that construction is complete. However, it is not uncommon for a permit to inadvertently remain open. This happened to me with Mackay Laneway House. The permit was supposed to be closed, but it wasn’t.

  So here’s the same mapping with open (i.e. active) permits also turned on:

  

  Three things immediately stand out:

  1. Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.
  2. Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.
  3. North Toronto is wealthy and isn’t having either of these housing typologies.

  Looking at these mappings, it probably seems like a decent amount of new housing. But that’s not really the case:

  • From 2013 to 2023, Toronto issued 2,209 building permits for secondary suites (1,525 have been closed and 684 remain open as of December 31, 2023).

  • And from 2020 to 2023, Toronto issued 898 building permits for rear-yard suites (192 have been closed and 706 remain open, which does suggest some increased adoption). Rear-yard suites only became permissible in 2018, which is why the date range is shorter.

  To be fair, I would imagine that many secondary suites get built without a building permit. So I think the above number is probably underestimating actual supply. But even still, it doesn’t change the conclusion: A lot more needs to be done to increase the supply of new housing in Toronto.

  2024.01.23

• An overview of rental housing in France

  Rental housing in France is both heavily regulated and supported through dedicated public funds. Here’s a high-level overview of what that means (via this 2021 Brookings case study by Arthur Acolin):

  • Homeownership rates in France went from 35% in 1954 to 56% in 2001
  • As of 2018, 58% of French households own, 40% rent, and the remaining 2% supposedly get free housing from either their employer or a family member
  • Not surprisingly, younger households are most likely to rent (the figure is > 60% for people aged 18-29)
  • Household size seems to play a major factor in how likely people are to live in public housing

  

  • France has some 4.5 million public housing units and 17% of all households live in them (which represents about 43% of all renter households)
  • Within the unsubsidized rental market, 93.5% of households live in homes owned by individual investors (this is as of 2013) and only about 3.5% live in homes owned by institutional investors
  • This is pretty typical of Europe, where multi-family isn’t an established real estate asset class like it is in North America; so for those of you who like to hate on individual condo investors, check out France
  • In the decade between 2010 and 2020, 28 metro regions in France adopted some form of rent control and, in a few markets, like Paris and Lille, there are also maximum rents that can be charged for specific housing types

  If you’re interested in rental housing, Brookings also has articles covering the US, Germany, Spain, Japan, and the UK. They can be found here.

  2024.01.22