Tag: housing

• The Tower — NFT Residences of Solana

  I am not counting on my nascent NFT collection to fund my retirement. At least not yet. But I have enjoyed collecting them this year and using them to learn about and get involved in the crypto space. Playing around and experimenting is one of the best ways to learn.

  I recently discovered a project called The Tower (DAO) and I think that many of you, particularly those in the real estate community, might find it interesting. In its simplest form, it is an NFT project where you buy “residences” in a virtual metaverse tower. They look something like this:

  

  The tower has 500 floors and 20 units per floor. And so there are 10,000 units in total. Each is unique.

  When you buy a residence, you get, among other things, a profile page on the web that allows you to show off your residence and all of the other NFTs in your crypto wallet. You can also see who else owns on your floor.

  Of course there are plans for a lot more. As part of The Tower’s roadmap, the team wants to direct some of the funds that it raises toward real-world affordable housing. There’s also a roommate model in the works where, presumably, people can share their residences and earn tokens.

  Now, I have no idea how a project like this ends up evolving or what it ultimately becomes. But I think it’s a fun example of the kind of creative projects that are being developed as a result of the fact that we can now all take ownership over scarce digital assets.

  Many of these “assets” will likely end up going to $0. But others, as we have seen, will come to be worth a lot.

  2021.11.19

• Hong Kong needs bigger apartments

  CityLab recently published this article about “why Hong Kong is building apartments the size of parking spaces.” It’s about the city’s “microflats” which are typically in the range of 150 to 300 square feet. Supposedly there about 8,500 of these apartments across Hong Kong and in 2019 (this was apparently peak microflat) they represented about 7% of all new residential construction.

  Hong Kong is one of the densest and most supply constrained real estate markets on the planet. And so there are very good reasons for these affordability pressures and the push toward smaller apartments. The article gets into a number of them. The concern I have is that the article also seems to blame developers for a number of these problems, without a clear understanding of the economics behind new construction.

  It is not enough to simply say that developers need to be less greedy and build bigger apartments. If a 250 sf apartment currently costs $1 million and you think it should be twice as big, then the price is now also going to be somewhere around twice as big. Is the answer more $2 million apartments? Developers trade in space and more space costs more money to build.

  All of this is not to say that housing affordability isn’t a problem worth addressing. It of course is. I am simply saying that there is a cost structure behind every new development that is driving decision making and driving what ultimately gets built. Understanding it can be helpful when looking for solutions. Believe it or not, not all developers are bad. Some actually want to help build beautiful, sustainable, and prosperous cities.

  2021.11.09

• New Zealand just abolished single-family zoning (for the most part)

  New Zealand has been in the news lately for sweeping housing legislation that effectively abolishes single-family zoning throughout most of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch.

  But before I get into how this will all work, here’s a bit of background from an article that Matt Gurney wrote talking about Toronto’s inability to build affordable housing and create safe streets:

  Now it’s time to segue back to the New Zealand thing, and there’s no particularly graceful way to do it, so I’ll just be blunt and inelegant: the federal government in New Zealand intervened on local housing rules because there was a crisis that local leaders were unable or unwilling to address. New Zealand has severe housing-affordability challenges (though Canada seems determined to close the gap). This has been a problem in New Zealand for years, and not enough was done, so the federal government stepped in… The government expects this to immediately spur construction of new housing units.

  It is no doubt a top down approach. But we all know how difficult it is to build anything at all when you start from the other end.

  So the way this new legislation will work is that it forces local councils to allow landowners to build up to 3 homes and 3 storeys on most lots. This is instead of 1 home per lot. The maximum site coverage has also been increased to 50%. And all of this will be available on an as-of-right basis, so no special permissions or variances needed.

  The pitch is that this will unlock as many as 105,000 new homes in already built-up areas. This is, of course, a good thing for a whole host of reasons. It uses land and infrastructure more efficiently, it makes public transit more viable, and it increases housing supply in a highly constrained market.

  I suspect that we will be seeing a lot more of this in the coming years.

  2021.10.26

• Stable low-rise residential neighborhoods are the be-all and end-all

  Toronto city council has decided to defer its decision on legalizing rooming houses across the city one more time. Some of you may remember that this item went to council in the summer and was deferred to this fall. So now a new report is going to be drafted and the item will then make its way back to council sometime in the new year. Perhaps a decision will be made at that point. We will see.

  This is an interesting debate for many reasons, one of which is its divisiveness. Shawn Micallef wrote a searing piece in the Toronto Star over the weekend talking about how city council is showing its contempt for renters in this city and how council’s inaction is both “insulting and cowardly.” Article, here (paywall).

  At the same time, we know that many/most councillors don’t want this to happen. Which is why you get comments like this (taken from Micallef’s article): “…fundamentally what we need to talk about is what we don’t talk about enough at this council … homeowners’ rights. People who invest in this city and who live in stable residential neighbourhoods, the people that pay the taxes in this city.”

  I have already shared my views on this topic in past posts, but these are annoying comments. I live in a multi-family building. I build multi-family buildings as my job. And my next home is already planned to be in a multi-family building. Does that make me a second class citizen because I don’t live in a “stable residential neighborhood?” Am I not adequately investing this city?

  2021.10.13

• Making River City

  My good friends over at Urban Capital recently released a short film about the making of their River City project here in Toronto. (If you can’t see the embedded video above, click here.)

  For those of you who aren’t familiar, River City is a 4-phase development on the east side of downtown that was really the first project in what was known as the West Don Lands area. Urban Capital secured the right to develop the then government-owned lands in 2008 through a public tender process that was run by Waterfront Toronto.

  It’s a tricky and unobvious kind of site in that it’s surrounded by infrastructure and it came with a whole host of development challenges, including flood risk. But the team figured it out and River City has gone on to win a number of awards including the Ontario Association of Architect’s Lieutenant Governor’s Award for Design Excellence.

  River City is an important project for Toronto in that it dared to be different. It’s like no other project in the city, and I’m not just saying this because they’re my friends. I’m saying it because I want our city to be a global leader in architecture, design, and development, and to continue to push the envelope.

  River City did exactly that.

  2021.10.02

• Productizing the delivery of new housing

  

  One of the co-founders of Juno — a new mass-timber and modular housing company — was recently interviewed by Dezeen. Prior to cofounding Juno, BJ Siegel was Apple’s design director and spent 19 years designing and working on their stores. And so this is the lens that he and his partners are bringing to the real estate development space. (I also just learned this morning that their head of real estate is a former classmate of mine from Penn.) Here is an excerpt from the Dezeen article that speaks to their goal of productizing the delivery of new housing:

  The third is Apple really challenged us to think about the way we deliver the project more like the way they deliver products through a kind of owner-furnished direct source supply chain model.

  And that actually spurred a lot of investigation as to how to translate that work from a product into this industry [real estate development], which is really kind of not focused on that.

  So that really was a big, big focus.

  The company recently announced that they have broken ground on their first project in Austin, Texas. It is a five storey 24-unit residential project that is being positioned as “middle-income, market-rate” housing. They’ve reduced the building down to about 33 standardized parts and are using a secret type of mass timber that is manufactured in the US. Supposedly it’s better than cross-laminated timber, but the company is keeping it as part of their secrete sauce right now.

  Juno is not the first company to identify this gaping problem in the development and construction space. The typical construction process is antiquated, inefficient, and filled with far too much waste. Which is why modular / pre-fabricated housing has been a goal of architects, builders and others for generations. Eventually we will figure out how to better productize the delivery of new housing and bring down its costs. And in my view that will be a great thing for consumers.

  Rendering by Engraff Studio via Dezeen

  2021.09.11

• What is the premium for a home in a walkable community?

  According to this RedFin data from 2019 — which looked at normalized sale prices and Walk Scores above 50 — it is about 23.5% or $77,668 for 16 major US metro areas. Again, this is 2019 data and so things may have changed a bit, especially with the whole COVID thing.

  It also varies by metro area in this data set. The premium in Boston, for example, is almost 30%. Whereas the premium in Oakland is actually a slight discount (-1.3%). There are going to be local conditions that play a role.

  But as a whole there is an economic trend here that makes intuitive sense to me. Though it’s not just a question of how pricey your home is. You also need to consider your transportation costs, the value of your time, and the health benefits of living in an environment that promotes consistent and moderate activity.

  When you factor all of these things, maybe “premium” isn’t the right way to look at this.

  2021.09.04

• South Korea’s idiosyncratic and counterintuitive home rental system

  

  Over the weekend I learned about a unique feature of South Korea’s housing market. It’s called jeonse. And the way this housing contract works is that, instead of tenants paying a monthly rent to their landlord, they pay a huge lump-sum amount up front. Usually this “key money” is equal to somewhere around 50% of the value of the home, but oftentimes it’s even higher (60-90% range). In 2014, the average cost of a jeonse deposit in Seoul was somewhere around US$300,000.

  In exchange for this huge lump-sum amount, jeonse tenants are able to live in the property for a period of time (usually 24 months) without having to pay any rent. Because what they are actually doing is paying via the opportunity cost of having their money tied up during their occupancy. Jeonse landlords are free to invest these lump-sum deposits however they see fit. The money they make from investing is their “rent” on the property. (The deposits are secured through a lien on the home, but of course that isn’t without some risk.)

  At first glance, this seems entirely counterintuitive. If you have hundreds of thousands of dollars available to you, why not buy? Why hand it over to a landlord so that they can go invest in things? Well, usually when there’s a marketplace for something it is because both sides stand to benefit. And in this case, the jeonse system supposedly emerged as the country was developing and people were rapidly urbanizing. Credit wasn’t widely available and so the jeonse system grew to help both tenants and landlords.

  For tenants, it was cheaper than owning a place outright and the “rent-free” period allowed them to more easily save up so that they could eventually buy. And for landlords, it was access to low-cost capital and the opportunity to invest in other money-making stuff. Some even credit the jeonse system with being instrumental in South Korea’s rapid rise in the second half of the 20th century.

  But is it still relevant today? Good question.

  The data suggests that it could very well be on the way out. Jeonse deposits have been declining for years and, based on this, it was overtaken in 2012 with more people choosing to pay rent on a monthly basis. As of 2019, it had grown to over 60% of tenancies in Seoul. And so it feels like the end could be near. But if any of you have first-hand experience with renting in South Korea, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.

  Photo by Cait Ellis on Unsplash

  2021.08.16

• Architect Bjarke Ingels announces new “design living” company

  News has just dropped that architect Bjarke Ingels, Roni Bahar, and Nick Chim are launching a new “design living” company called Nabr. Their website says that it is “coming soon to Silicon Valley” and so presumably there will be tech involved and we should actually be calling it a startup.

  The video embedded at the top of this post (link here) will tell you a little bit about it. But from what I can glean from their website, the focus is on using technology and modular construction to deliver housing that is more personal / adaptable, more sustainable, and more attainable. There is a note on their site about buying with only 1% down.

  We have talked a lot on this blog about the antiquated and slow-moving nature of design, development, and construction. So what it absolutely clear is that there are many problems to be solved here. I am excited to see what the team brings forward.

  2021.08.11

• At what point does one start appreciating new housing?

  When you look at some of the most iconic home designs from around the world — which Bloomberg CityLab has been doing — there are some trends that emerge. One of them has to do with desirability. Whether we’re talking about Stockholm or Montreal, a lot of the housing that is today cherished, started out as fairly utilitarian. There was a need for housing and so governments and developers stepped up to build, often as cost effectively as possible. The result was housing that a lot of people seemed to dislike. At least initially.

  Here are a few excerpts from a recent post by CityLab talking about Montreal’s famous walk-up apartments:

  Their shape was dictated by the dimensions of the lots sold by developers: Narrow at the front, they run as deep as 120 feet and open onto an alley, leaving enough space for backyards and sheds behind. Inside, the units are not particularly big, with duplex apartments, often rectangular in shape, typically from 750 square feet to 1,000 square feet. Triplex apartments are a little larger and sometimes configured in an L-shape, a trick that builders used to make the most of the lot’s depth while getting some side light. Rooms unfold on one or either side of a corridor, with the kitchen at the back.

  Despite their reputation for charm today, the plexes were long criticized for their overcrowding and lack of light. Working-class homes were sometimes known as “the poor man’s coffin,” says Noppen. 

  “These are very narrow, dark, long buildings, which above all, were overcrowded,” he says. Today the apartments may be sought after, as “part of a considerable gentrification movement, but that’s because, two, three people live inside — that used to be 15.”

  I think most people forget that the housing we love today was probably built by a developer and almost certainly done in the pursuit of profit. Which begs the question: What has to happen before people suddenly start appreciating? Eliminating overcrowding certainly helps. But is it also a question of time? Do we just need time for the housing to settle in and get absorbed into the market? Or do we simply tend to dislike that which is new and so we need something even newer to hate before we can appreciate the now old?

  2021.08.06