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

  • Redfin experiment shows how home buyers react to flood-risk data

    This is a fascinating little experiment:

    From Oct. 12, 2020 to Jan. 3, 2021, Redfin ran an experiment on 17.5 million of its users across the US. As prospective homebuyers entered the site, Redfin assigned them randomly to either a group that was shown flood-risk information on each property or a group that was not.

    The flood-risk scores came from First Street Foundation, a climate and technology nonprofit that works to make climate hazards more transparent to the public. In June 2020, First Street published the first public maps that revealed flood risk for every home and property in the contiguous US. 

    First Street scores properties on a scale of 1 to 10 based on the likelihood that they will flood in the next 30 years (which is assumed to be a typical mortgage term). A score of 1 means the property has “minimal” risk and a score between 9-10 is considered “extreme” risk.

    So what happens once you start showing people flood-risk information? They, not surprisingly, start systematically looking for safer properties. After one week of users being exposed to this new information, prospective buyers who were previously looking at “extreme” homes started looking at homes that were about 7% safer.

    After 9 weeks, these same “extreme” home buyers were looking at properties that were about 25% less risky. And for some buyers, in particular those working with a Redfin agent or partner, their flood-risk tolerance dropped by over 50%. (Embedded in this data might be a sales pitch for working with a knowledgeable Redfin agent or partner).

    Also interesting is the fact that below “severe” flood risk (a score between 7-8), there was very little change in behavior. “Major” flood risk, it would seem, isn’t all that concerning to most buyers. It needs to be “severe”. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that people will in fact make behavioral changes when presented with clear climate-risk data.

  • Listed.fun (and something else)

    This is a fun little passion project by Airbnb-engineer Andrew Pariser and someone known as Potch. The way it works is that it shows you a picture of a recently sold property, and you have to guess what it sold for. You get a bunch of guesses, and after each one, you are given more information about the property and some feedback on how close you are. To win, you need to get within 1%.

    When I tried it out, my initial guess was way off (too high). Toronto has trained me well. I also wasn’t sure where Evansville, Indiana was, so that bit of information didn’t really help me. But the arrows telling me I was way too high, certainly did. The reality is that it’s pretty hard to guess the value of a home if you don’t know where it is, you can’t see interior photos, and you generally don’t have enough information.

    But what if you were from Evansville, Indiana and what if you did have enough information? I bet that the guestimates would actually be pretty accurate. This idea of crowd-sourcing market information and pulling wisdom from crowds has long interested me, because price discovery is a major pain point for real estate. Sure you can look at comparable sales and current listings, but that is not an exact science. Neither are algorithms.

    But what if there was a way to test the market and get pricing feedback before you actually list? Would you trust it more than Zillow’s algorithm? This is something that I’m working on testing right now through a passion project called Unlyst. Myself and a few others are working on a very simple product that will be released this fall. If you’d like to follow along, sign up here.

  • Adam Neumann raises $350 million to revolutionize the apartment market

    Today it was announced that venture firm a16z has made a $350 million investment in Adam Neumann’s new residential rental company called Flow (which is kind of ironic).

    The company is set to launch in 2023 and nobody on the outside seems to be entirely clear on how it plans to revolutionize the multi-family rental market, but supposedly this funding round values Flow at more than $1 billion and supposedly Neumann will be rolling in the 4,000 or so apartments that he has been buying up.

    In any event, here’s how a16z described the opportunity (I think the key sentence is probably the one about creating a system where renters become like owners):

    Only through a seismic shift in the way industry relationships are structured and the mechanisms through which value is delivered can we hope to address the underlying problems of the current system and build the solution. Doing this requires combining community-driven, experience-centric service with the latest technology in a way that has never been done before to create a system where renters receive the benefits of owners. This means rethinking the entire value chain, from the way buildings are purchased and owned to the way residents interact with their buildings to the way value is distributed among stakeholders. And given the fragmented nature of the ecosystem today, we can only hope to accomplish any of this by bringing every aspect of the living experience together.

    What I will say is that I think it’s great to see this amount of innovation-focused money flowing into the residential real estate space, which is, after all, the biggest asset class in the world and one that could certainly use some fresh ideas. Apparently it’s also the biggest funding round that a16z has ever done.

    But I also find a16z’s characterization of the problems a bit odd. Renting an apartment is described as this soulless and profoundly lonely experience where you’re so ashamed of where you live that you’re even hesitant to invite friends over. They also conflate house with home, as if to say that you can’t have the latter without the former.

    On second thought, maybe these are exactly the right problems to be solving. It is our biases that we need to do something about.

  • The story of Los Angeles’ last Japanese boarding house

    Rooming houses or boarding houses are a divisive topic. Here in Toronto, they are permitted in the older parts of the city, but illegal everywhere else. Since 2021, we have been talking about changing that in attempt to increase the supply of what is typically the most affordable kind of housing. But there are lots of people who want to “protect the integrity of single-family communities”, and so a decision on this issue has been, as I understand it, punted until sometime next year. At some point, I suspect a decision will be made (though deferring is also a decision).

    While we wait, this recent piece by journalist and photographer Samanta Helou Hernandez tells an interesting story of Los Angeles’ last Japanese boarding house. But as you’ll see from her article, it’s labeled as a boarding house, but it really acted as a kind of community center. Boarding houses in this community have, over the years, served as a place for people to get back on their feet (after returning from internment camps following WWII) and as a place where they could speak their own language and build community.

    Looking back on the history of the area, it’s hard to fathom being comfortable with some of the exclusionary policies that were in place at that time, which effectively blocked immigrants and people of color from moving to certain areas. Then again, I’m sure posterity will look back on some of decisions being made today and wonder what we were thinking.

  • Why housing is so expensive

    A friend of mine sent me the above podcast episode this morning (click here if you can’t see it embedded above). I’ve only listened to a bit of it, but I plan to finish it up over the long weekend. Here are the topics it covers:

    We discuss why the states with the highest homelessness rates are all governed by Democrats, the roots of America’s homelessness crisis, why economists believe the U.S. gross domestic product could be over a third — a third! — higher today if American cities had built more housing, why it’s so hard to build housing where it’s needed most, the actual (and often misunderstood) causes of gentrification, why public housing has such a bad reputation in the U.S.; how progressives’ commitment to local democracy and community voice surprisingly lies at the heart of America’s housing crises, why homeownership is still the primary vehicle of wealth accumulation in America (and the toxic impact that has on our politics), what the U.S. can learn from the housing policies of countries like Germany and France, what it would take to build a better politics of housing and much more.

  • Which is the most important when it comes to new housing?

    If you can’t see the Twitter poll below, click here:

    At the time of writing this post, affordability was number one, followed by design and beauty, and then sustainability.

    Some of you were right to point out that these options are not always mutually exclusive. Affordability and sustainability, for instance, can be mutually reinforcing.

    Building in walkable and transit-rich neighborhoods where parking is not needed is both good for overall affordability (parking is usually a loss leader) and better for the environment.

    But in other cases, sustainability costs more. Triple-glazed windows might perform better than conventional double-glazed, but they’re also more expensive.

    Now, as a general rule, I believe in working hard to find the mutually reinforcing opportunities. How can we check all of the boxes and not have to compromise?

    But sometimes there’s no other option. So it is interesting to see how people answer the above question. Not surprisingly, affordability is top of mind.

    Which would you pick?

  • Infill balcony housing — an adaptive reuse proposal

    Balconies are a never ending debate here in Toronto (and in many other places). In some cities, like New York, they don’t seem to matter for new housing. Residents seem to be generally content without them. But here in Toronto, we have typically included them in new high-rise housing and there has been a lot of debate and criticism around both their utility (high up in buildings) and their impact to overall energy performance.

    I have noticed that we are starting to see fewer balconies on new buildings, and I suspect this might increase with the way that costs are right now. And for some people and some (sub)markets, this will be just fine. But I happen to be a huge fan of outside. As my tanned dad likes to say when asked about the value of outdoor spaces in multi-family housing, “you don’t get this dark by staying inside.” He is pretty tanned.

    I also believe that great outdoor spaces are an important ingredient in shaking off the deep-rooted cultural biases that this city has toward low-rise housing. Since pretty much the beginning, low-rises houses with backyards have been seen as noble, whereas apartment buildings have been viewed as disease-breeding tenements liable to morally corrupt even the best of intentions.

    This is one of the reasons why we created the two-storey House Collection of suites at Junction House and why One Delisle is almost entirely formed by its outdoor spaces (both balconies and terraces). We wanted to celebrate multi-family living.

    At the same time, I really like this adaptive reuse proposal by Peter Song over at BDP Quadrangle. The idea is to allow people to infill their balconies with more interior space so that our existing stock of housing can become more flexible for growing families and for when people’s lives just generally change.

    The balcony offers extra space for children to play, and parents to work. ©Peter Song

    It would be a great way to capture additional space within our existing stock of buildings, and I think it would be pretty interesting to see what people ultimately choose when given a binary option: more interior space or more outdoor space. Maybe it would help provide some clarity to the great balcony debate.

    Technically, it is my understanding that this is entirely doable.

    In the middle of writing this post I shot an email over to one of the best structural engineers in the city (James Cranford, Principal at Stephenson Engineering), and he confirmed that strength is no problem. Typically balconies are designed to accommodate more load than the suites. The thing we’d have to look at is slab deflection, since this is not usually limited on balconies.

    The greater challenge is likely to be the overall coordination.

    In some cities this sort of thing happens all the time on an ad hoc basis. People just do it and the end result is likely more functional, but the building elevations end up looking pretty schizophrenic. Here you’d need each condominium corporation to bless the change (since the envelope is a common element). And people would also need to agree on what design(s) should be used across the building.

    It would require some work, but I think Peter’s idea is a really good one. What do you think?

  • Sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable

    I just discovered a new alliance of non-partisan, non-profit resident and ratepayer groups in the Greater Toronto Area that have come together in opposition of what they see as “unregulated overdevelopment and the lack of sensible growth vision for the GTA.” If you’d like to read through their public letter to the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, you can do that over here.

    In it you will learn that the Toronto region is vying desperately for the title of the most densely populated place on earth by trying to compete with already established locales like the slums of Mumbai and Monk Kok in Hong Kong. One has to admire ambition.

    But what is not clear to me is what exactly “sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable developments” should look like. Should we quash our low-rise “Neighbourhood” designations (the majority of our land area) and instead blanket the region with mid-rise buildings similar to Paris? This is one option and, by the way, Paris is far denser than Toronto (relevant reading here and here).

    Or should we maintain our low-rise “Neighbourhoods” exactly as they are and simply reduce overall housing supply by limiting height and/or density at our transit stations? Is this the ask? I’m not sure. But this is a good question for city builders: What should sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable development look like? Is the 33-storey building that I live in sensible?

  • Density bonus as inclusionary zoning offset

    Somebody on Twitter responded to my recent post about inclusionary zoning and asked: Aren’t all the upzonings that the City is already doing a kind of density bonus? In other words, and this is me elaborating here, why is there an economic “shortfall?” Why does there need to be any other sort of subsidy in order to mitigate the economic impacts of inclusionary zoning?

    A density bonus can mean and can be used in a number of different contexts. Sometimes it is used as an incentive with landowners, whereby they get a bonus on top of their sale price if the developer manages to achieve a certain amount of density on the site. But in this particular case — IZ subsidies — we’re talking about something else.

    We’re talking about density above and beyond what you might normally achieve on a particular site in order to directly offset — maybe partially or maybe entirely — the economic shortfall brought about by inclusionary zoning. The fact that upzonings are happening all over the city doesn’t necessarily qualify them as bonuses. In the case of Toronto, the market is just responding to out-of-date zoning.

    Here’s a specific example.

    Let’s say you have a development site with in-place zoning that would allow you to build 20,000 sf of density. This is the as-of-right or by-right density. No need to rezone the site. Just file your building permits and you’re off making things. If this is the most you could build, then the market would value the land based on this density. As we have talked about before, land is the residual claimant in a development pro forma.

    However, if the zoning was out of date and it was fairly clear that one could rezone the site and build up to 100,000 sf, then the market would no longer value the site based on its in-place zoning. It would instead value it based on its future expected density. Again, because land is the residual claimant, more density = higher land value.

    In this second scenario, the additional 80,000 sf is, in my view, not a density bonus. Give or take a bit here and there, it is the density that everyone is generally expecting. The market has already priced it in. A true bonus / subsidy, would be something above and beyond the base of 100,000 sf. Something that is only available to developers if they do X — which could be build affordable housing.

    Maybe the bonus is perfectly tuned to exactly offset the economic drag of doing X, or maybe the bonus is designed to serve as an incentive to do X. In this latter case, the bonus would more than offset the drag and be accretive to the pro forma, which would mean that every sensible developer would now want to do X. More carrot, less stick.

    One of the challenges with this hypothetical scenario is that, for such a bonus structure to work, you need to know the baseline that you’re bonusing against and you need to ensure that nobody gets the bonus unless they do the thing — the X. Using the above example, that means that the 100,000 sf needs to be fairly firm and that anything above that number only happens with the delivery of affordable housing.

  • The inclusionary zoning shortfall

    Colliers recently hosted a webinar about inclusionary zoning here in Toronto. On the panel was Jeremiah Shamess (SVP at Colliers / moderator), David Bronskill (partner at Goodmans), Giulio Cescato (senior planner at IBI Group), and Richard Witt (principal at BDP Quadrangle). I wasn’t able to attend (either because of a critical meeting or because I was off attending to a gluttonous lunch burrito), but the slides are now available online. I was going through them this morning and I came across this chart from NBLC:

    What you are seeing here is a comparison between a typical market development before IZ and a development after IZ. As you can see, soft costs remain the same, hard costs remain the same, and the profit margin remains the same. What changes is the overall revenue. Market revenue goes down because you now have fewer market-rate units and a new IZ revenue is added, which is the revenue generated from the addition of affordable units to the project.

    But when you add up the market revenue and the IZ revenue, you don’t get back to the same economic equilibrium. In other words, there has been a destruction of value, and so something is going to have to give in order for this project to pencil and remain financeable. Otherwise, no development will take place. This shortfall is the red box area in the above graph that says, “impact of inclusionary zoning.”

    We have discussed this red box gap a lot on the blog, because how you think this gap gets filled might determine how you think of inclusionary zoning as a policy tool. In this particular instance/graph, the gap is filled by a reduction in the value of the land. Everything else remains static. So what is effectively happening in this model is that the landowner, who has decided to sell their land to the above developer, is now the one who has to indirectly pay for this new affordable housing.

    This may seem like a sensible way to go about it. I mean, people who own land must be rich. Let’s make them pay. But is this actually what is going to happen in practice and over extended periods of time? Soft costs — things like development charges — are always going up. Why aren’t land values perpetually declining in order to offset these additional costs? It is largely because market revenues have also been increasing. Housing keeps getting more expensive. And that is what has been keeping the market going.

    I suspect that over an extended period of time, the same thing will happen here.