Tag: housing

• Are short-term rentals really a zero-sum game?

  The prevailing view on short-term rentals right now seems to be this:

  

  That is, it’s viewed as a zero-sum game between residents and tourists. There are only so many homes within a city, and so if any of them are to turn into short-term rentals, then it is a direct reduction in the supply of available long-term homes. This can also happen very quickly given the asset-light nature of Airbnb and the fact that these spaces aren’t usually purpose-built.

  It is for this reason that many cities have enacted strict short-term rental laws that basically only allow you to rent out your principal residence when you’re not around or if you happen to have extra space. In the case of New York, you have to be physically present when the dwelling is being rented, and so the use case is exclusively “I have extra space for you.”

  Either way, the basic idea is to stop people from removing homes from the long-term market. I do, however, find it curious that reductions in housing supply seem to be generally viewed as bad, but that increases in housing supply are often met with skepticism. Doesn’t housing supply work in both directions? Why aren’t more people clamouring for new homes to be built?

  Where my head is at on this issue is that I don’t see it as a zero-sum game. I believe that there should be rules and regulations around short-term rentals, but that they shouldn’t stamp out all use cases other than “here’s an air mattress in my living room.” At the same time, I think we should be viewing this as an opportunity. Clearly we need more homes, more hotels, and more short-term rentals.

  It’s only zero-sum if we make it that way.

  2023.12.22

• This is how many more people Toronto could house if it increased its population density

  As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about infill housing and overall urban densities, let’s look at some basic math.

  The City of Toronto has an estimated population of 3,025,647 (as of June 2023) and a land area of 630 square meters. That means that its average population density is about 4,803 people per km2. Obviously this number will be higher in some locations, and lower in others. But overall, this is the average.

  Now let’s consider how many people we could actually fit within the existing boundaries of the city (city proper not the metro area) if we were to simply match the average population densities of some other global cities around the world.

  

  Again, what this chart is saying is that if we took the same physical area (Toronto’s 630 square meters) and just increased the population density to that of, say, Paris, we would then have a total population of over 13 million people and we’d be housing an additional 10,011,573 humans on the same footprint.

  I am not suggesting that this is exactly what should be done. (Though, you all know how much I love Paris.) What I’m suggesting is that calling a place “full” isn’t exactly accurate. How would you even measure that? What someone is really saying is that they are content with the status quo in terms of built form and density.

  Note: The above population densities were all taken from Wikipedia, except for Toronto’s figures, which were taken from here.

  2023.12.16

• Creating homes for people

  Bill Gairdner of Gairloch Developments sent me this message the other morning:

  

  He is talking about Junction House and he is, of course, right. It is a very cool feeling to create homes for people.

  It’s not easy building buildings. People get upset at you. They tell you that you’re ruining their community. And broadly speaking, it can feel like every imaginable obstacle has been placed in front of you to make things more difficult.

  But at the end of the day, once the dust settles, there will be places to live where places did not exist before. And then people will move into these places and transform them into homes.

  They’ll make them their own, create new memories, and, in the case of the people that Bill was referring to, they’ll raise a family.

  I’m not trying to make this sound more grandiose than it deserves to be. But I am being honest when I say that I know the team feels both a sense of honor and a great sense of responsibility because of the work we do.

  You want people to be happy and you want the city to be a better place. So it’s hard not to feel a little emotional when you see people moving into a place that you’ve worked tirelessly on for several years.

  Yeah, it is a cool feeling, Bill.

  2023.10.30

• Should more people live together?

  We know that, for a variety of reasons, more and more people are living alone. As of 2018, single-person households represented about 28% of all households in the US. This is up from 13.1% in 1960.

  Here in Canada, single-person households became the predominant household type in 2016 (we’re also at 28%) for the first time in Canada’s 150+ year history. And the numbers are even higher for some European countries. In Finland, Germany, and Norway, more than 4 in 10 households are single-person.

  Part of this has to do with people living longer. In Canada, 42% of people aged 85 or older (and living in a private household) live alone. But part of this is also cultural. Japan has one of the oldest populations in the world, but it doesn’t have the highest percentage of single-person households. Although, the number is relatively high and increasing. It’s nearly 40%.

  Whatever the case may be, you could argue that there appears to be some sort of global trend line toward more people living alone. But here’s an important question: Is this a good thing?

  Albert Wenger recently argued in this blog post that, actually, we need new forms of living together. Whether it’s multigenerational living or coliving with like-minded friends, there are clear benefits to living with other people. You get to share resources. You get elders that can look after kids. And you get company.

  There’s also an opportunity to curate your environment. As Phil Levin puts it on his coliving blog Supernuclear: “If your home is filled with motivated people, you will be more motivated. [And] if your home is filled with funny people, you will laugh more.”

  Albert posits that office conversions (which are obviously in vogue right now) could serve as an opportunity to rethink our built environment around coliving. And while this is certainly true, I’m not sure we need it to happen. There are ways we can live together today, within our existing environment, if we want to.

  The question is: do we?

  2023.09.25

• Real estate investors are outbidding people who own strollers

  Here’s a potential scenario:

  “When you have investors competing with first-time buyers who walk in with a couple of [baby] strollers, typically the investor is going to win,” Mr. Pasalis says. “They are well capitalized. They can pay a higher price. And this is why our home ownership rate is declining, because more and more homes are actually going into the hands of investors who rent them out, and amplifying home and amplifying condo prices. We are seeing that.”

  But let’s break this down a little.

  Where are these first-time buyers walking into? Is it a resale home showing or is it a pre-construction showroom? If it’s the latter, then we know it’s going to be difficult / atypical for them to make a buy decision so far in advance. They already have multiple strollers in hand, do they want to wait 4-7 years for their pre-construction home to be ready?

  I would also add that in our current environment — where investor demand for pre-construction homes has waned significantly — the development industry has not seen a marked uptick in end-user demand. Why are they not stepping up now that they’re not being outbid by investors? In my opinion, it’s an ideal time to buy!

  One reason could be that people who own strollers still largely prefer low-rise housing. Maybe it’s for reasons of affordability, maybe it’s a cultural bias, or maybe it’s a genuine preference. Either way, let’s turn our attention to resale homes. In this scenario, who is likely to pay the most?

  If you’re an investor, then you are looking for a specific yield. And so in theory, it should be a mostly dispassionate decision: “Here’s the most that I can pay in order to meet my minimum returns. Do not exceed.” But the question is whether is this is going to be more or less than what a stroller-owning group of people would pay.

  The answer is probably that it depends. However, if the answer is that the investor wins and they then turn around and rent it to people who own strollers, is this actually a problem? And if this same investor happens to own 25 other rental homes and they’re all rented to people who own strollers, is this an even greater problem?

  I suppose it is a problem if you’re worried about Canada’s homeownership rate, which has in fact declined from about 69% (in 2011) to 66.5% (in 2021). But what does this even mean? Is a higher homeownership rate always better? Does Canada have a target number? As of February of this year, the homeownership rate in Switzerland was only about 36.3%. And the last time I checked, it was still a rich country.

  There is nothing wrong with renting. I know wealthy people who have opted to rent their entire life because they enjoyed the flexibility and/or had better places to put their money.

  All of this said, the argument in the above scenario is that, but for investors outbidding people with strollers, these homes would be more affordable and that would in turn increase the homeownership rate. It’s a similar argument to, but for foreign buyers or but for Airbnbs, these homes would be more affordable.

  But in a city like Toronto, we are building very little in the way of new low-rise houses. New supply is virtually non-existent. Similarly in Seattle, they are now building more accessory dwelling units than they are single-family houses. So it is any wonder that demand is constantly outstripping supply and that prices are being bid up?

  In my opinion, a better solution is to rethink how we build our low-rise neighborhoods. And here and here are two good places to start.

  2023.07.08

• Thoughts on Opendoor Exclusives

  My most recent post about Opendoor, the so-called iBuying company, is about how it wants to become the “transaction layer for homes.” What that means is they would like to start facilitating third-party transactions between buyers and sellers, and move away (either partially or completely) from actually owning homes for a period of time.

  The company is still trying to sell homes that it purchased in Q2-2022, which, as we all know, was a very different kind of housing market. So by doing this, Opendoor would be both reducing the market risk that it takes on and making its business model less capital intensive.

  Knowing this, I actually think that “iBuyer” is the wrong moniker for their business. As I see it, the long-term objective is not to just be an iBuyer of homes. The objective is to ultimately facilitate transactions in a capital efficient kind of way. The point of iBuying is/was to seed their two-sided marketplace with sellers.

  As we have discussed before, two-sided marketplaces usually always have a chicken-and-egg problem. No sellers equals no buyers, and vice versa. So you have to figure out a clever way to attract one side. Of course, now that Opendoor has sellers, the company can start to aggregate the demand side (i.e. buyers). And that is exactly what it is doing with Opendoor Exclusives.

  Exclusives works like this:

  • The inventory consists of “off-market” homes that have yet to be listed on MLS
  • The homes are discounted about 2-4%
  • They are available for 14 days
  • You can’t negotiate the price — it’s first come, first served
  • If your appraisal comes in lower, Opendoor will price match
  • And finally, Opendoor will not pay any buyer commissions (which is reflected in the above discount)

  As I understand it, if the home doesn’t sell, it then gets listed on MLS and all of the normal terms and practices would apply. But before that happens, the key objective is to facilitate a quick transaction in one of two ways.

  The first way is for the seller to request an offer from Opendoor’s network of buyers. In this scenario, Opendoor never needs to own the home or perform any improvements (which is usually what it does when it iBuys). It is an intermediary earning some sort of take.

  The second way is for Opendoor to do its usual thing and make an instant offer to buy the home. But here’s the thing. With enough buyers on its platform and by creating a sense of urgency (hey, here’s a lower price!), presumably the idea is that it may never need to close on a number of these homes. It just needs to find another buyer within 14 days.

  If it works, this could be an interesting business.

  2023.03.22

• A template for opposing new housing

  Okay, I really don’t want to make this — using ChatGPT to write my blog posts for me — a habit. But I was genuinely curious what would happen if I asked it to: “write a stereotypical NIMBY letter opposing a new housing development.” Here’s what it generated.

  ---

  Dear Sir/Madam,

  I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.

  First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.

  Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.

  Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.

  In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

  Sincerely, [Your Name]

  ---

  I must say that I’m impressed. It is a solid 5-paragraph letter that follows a tried and true formula. First, the entire letter is sandwiched between thinly veiled statements around the importance of housing. Both the introduction and conclusion speak to “the need for affordable housing.”

  And then in the middle of the letter, it hits on the holy trinity of opposition arguments: (1) overburdened/inadequate infrastructure, (2) neighborhood character, and (3) property values. I’m not sure there’s much to improve on here. These computers are good.

  So if you happen to need one of these, you may want to try ChatGPT.

  2023.03.02

• Non-Canadians can’t buy a lot of real estate

  The Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act — which came into effect in January of this year and bans foreigners from buying residential real estate in the country for two years — is weird.

  We can debate whether banning foreigners from buying residential real estate is really helpful for housing affordability and if it’s the most impactful place to focus our attention (and we have talked about this many times before), but the part that is particularly odd is this feature here:

  …the law’s definition of residential property includes land that is zoned for residential use or mixed use, which covers huge swaths of commercial land across the country. As well, an entity is deemed foreign if a non-Canadian owns a minimum of 3 per cent of the entity.

  What this means is that the following scenario is now technically a problem (not actual legal advice!):

  • You own a commercial property with zero homes
  • You have long-term commercial leases in place that also generally preclude you from building new homes in the foreseeable future
  • The zoning of your property allows for residential uses (which you like having in your back pocket)
  • And your cousin from Italy owns 3% of the entity that owns the real estate

  This is a scenario where residential homes do not exist and they are unlikely to exist any time soon. It seems clear cut, but I suppose one could argue that it’s exceedingly onerous to try and figure out which sites are soft sites and could actually be developed with new residential. And so if you have the potential to build and then own residential, you should be regulated as if you might ultimately own some of it one day.

  But even here, I don’t know why we would want to restrict the supply side of the housing equation. If you’re a developer in Canada where housing is known to be kind of expensive and you want to build more of it for Canadians, isn’t that a good thing? And isn’t it also a good thing if we can get some non-Canadians to help pay for these new homes?

  2023.02.13

• A home not a unit

  I dislike the term residential unit.

  It makes a home sound like some sort of widget. When have you ever heard someone say, “unit sweet unit”? Never. And yet this is generally what we use to refer to housing that comes in an apartment form and is not grade-related.

  If you build low-rise houses, you’re a home builder. But anything beyond that, and the home moniker apparently needs to fall away.

  There is, of course, a very good reason for this and it is that we have a longstanding history of not liking apartments. And so this is in all likelihood some sort of carryover of that bias. Surely there’s no way to create a morally-correct home in an apartment. So let’s use a more utilitarian sounding name, like unit.

  I’m sure that I have used the word “unit” countless times on this blog throughout the years. But I am working to remove it from my vocabulary. And now you can all hold me accountable to that.

  2023.01.11

• Los Angeles approves new “mansion tax”

  If you’re looking to pass a new ordinance and/or create a new tax, it’s important to have the right name. Take, for example, Los Angeles’ new “mansion tax.” The majority of people do not have a so-called “mansion.” And so signaling to people that you’re going to tax this thing and then redistribute the funds to help others with better housing is, not surprisingly, attractive to many. Here’s how the new tax works:

  Known as Measure ULA — for “United to House LA” — the ordinance marketed as a “mansion tax” will impose a 4% tax on property sales above $5 million, rising to 5.5% on sales above $10 million. So a $5-million sale would include a $200,000 tax, and a $10-million sale would include a $550,000 tax, which is typically paid by the seller.

  Of course, if you’re a rich person with a mansion, your first thought is going to be, “how do I avoid having to pay this?” Here are two unproven and possibly illegal options that I am not condoning in any way:

  For example, if a homeowner is selling a mansion for $15 million, they’d be slapped with a $825,000 tax bill. But if they split up the property into three parts owned by three different entities and sold all three pieces for $4.999 million each, they would hypothetically elude the tax since it only kicks in at $5 million.

  Another strategy might be to hatch deals off the books to keep a sale under $5 million. For example, if a seller wanted $7 million for their house, they could reach a deal with a buyer to sell it for $4.999 million, thus avoiding the tax, but then sell the furniture in the home for $2 million.

  I don’t have a mansion, so I’m fortunate enough not to have to worry about such things. But I do think about the impact on things like new rental supply. My understanding of the ordinance is that if you’re a developer of rental housing, and you buy a lot for $4.99 million, build a mid-market apartment, and then turn around and sell it to a pension fund for $10.01 million, you would be subject to this new tax.

  Hmm. I wouldn’t call this a mansion.

  2022.12.16