Tag: housing

• What’s next for Canada’s housing market?

  

  Rachelle Younglai’s recent piece in the Globe and Mail does a great job summarizing Canada’s COVID-19 housing boom. The title of the article is, “How Canada’s real estate market defied expectations in the COVID-19 pandemic.”

  Non-mortgage debt is down. Mortgage debt is up. Money is cheap. And people are clamoring for drivable vacation homes. Average home prices in places like Prince Edward County and the Kawartha Lakes (both outside of Toronto) are up ~30% from Jan 2020 to Jan 2021.

  But after I sent this article around this morning, I was reminded that this is a good summary of what has just happened. It, for the most part, does not speak to what might happen going forward.

  None of us can travel anywhere. We’re stuck at home. And immigration volumes last year were down some 48% in Toronto, 43% in Vancouver, 40% in Montreal, and 46% in Calgary. The Toronto region went from about 120,000 new permanent residents in 2019 to about half that last year.

  The behaviors and market outcomes that we have seen over the last 12 months, therefore, make intuitive sense. But how about the next 12 months or the next 5 years? I would prefer to use this latter time period for decision making right now.

  Chart: The Globe and Mail

  2021.02.20

• Net new housing units in New York City since 2010

  

  Here are a few interesting stats from a brief report that New York City published this month about their supply of new housing units:

  • From January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020, New York City delivered 205,994 net new housing units across the five boroughs.
  • This total includes 202,956 units from new construction and 29,161 units from the alteration/conversion of existing buildings. However, it also factors units that were lost as a result of demolition (-17,400) or alteration (-8,723).
  • Brooklyn saw the most supply, followed by Manhattan. The four highest-growth Community Districts were responsible for 1/3 of all new housing additions. These CDs are all formerly non-residential areas that were rezoned to allow living.
  • Manhattan saw the greatest loss in housing units as a result of alterations (people combining units). This was most prevalent in wealthy neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, and Greenwich Village.

  What is interesting about this last point is that it shows you that cities are far from static. New York City lost 26,123 housing units during the above time period, with 8,723 units being lost to alterations and people combining units.

  The orange areas on the above map are neighborhoods which actually became less dense over the last decade. And of course, this phenomenon is not unique to New York City. We are seeing the same thing play out in some/many neighborhoods in Toronto.

  What this mean is that the role of new development is really twofold. It allows a city to grow (i.e. house new New Yorkers), but it also replaces lost housing and relieves some of the pressures on the existing housing stock. I don’t think many people appreciate this dynamic — or perhaps they don’t care.

  For a copy of the full report (it’s only two pages), click here.

  2021.02.12

• Luxury housing surges in San Francisco

  

  The story of two markets continues. Median rents in San Francisco are down some 27% percent over the last year. Sales of homes priced under $300,000 are down by about a fifth. And yet, according to the Financial Times, sales are up significantly for homes priced above $2 million. For the top 5% of homes, prices ended the year up about 26.5%. Overall, the median home price in San Francisco was up 16.8% last year. It now sits at $718,000. As we’ve talked about before, much of this can be chalked up to the fact that the financial impacts of this current environment are being unequally felt. But I also see it as evidence that, despite all of the media headlines, many/most people aren’t actually betting against cities.

  Chart: FT

  2021.02.11

• Compact housing for the future of our urban spaces

  

  “Unexpected approaches for the future of our urban spaces.” Publisher Gestalten has a new book out that you can pre-order called, Vertical Living: Compact Architecture for Urban Spaces. The book is not about tall buildings, despite what the title might suggest, but rather about “impossibly slender homes” in narrow and tight urban spaces. As many of you know, I have long been a fan of compact and creative homes. One, they force creativity. It’s like designing a boat (not that I have done that before). Every inch matters. And two, it is about seeing opportunity where others don’t.

  Sometimes we miss these opportunities because of cultural biases. We believe that a home should look and behave a certain way. But these viewpoints are not necessarily universal. They vary across cities and they can even vary within cities. As Toronto and many other cities around the world try and figure out how to deliver the so-called “missing middle,” we are going to need to open ourselves up to some of what’s in this book — namely the unexpected. New housing solutions that don’t fit within certain neat and tidy definitions.

  We’ve done this before with laneway suites. Formerly an illegal housing type, Toronto is now in the midst of what feels like a laneway housing boom. I don’t know exactly how many are under construction or have been completed under the city’s new policies, but I would wager that the uptake has been strong. And over time, this new housing typology is going to reshape how we think about our laneways. They will evolve along with the new uses that are now beginning to flank them. The unexpected will become the expected.

  Shall we try this again?

  Image: Gestalten

  2021.01.24

• The most unremarkable streets in Toronto

  Within Toronto’s urban structure you have regular streets and you have things known as “Avenues.” (This is among a bunch of other stuff such as Centres and Employment Areas.) What this Avenue designation does is tell you that it may be a suitable location for a new mid-rise building, which is something that I have written a lot about on this blog. Here in Toronto, this means that you would then need to consult the “Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards.” Indeed, if you dust off these standards and turn to the introduction, you’ll find the following: “The Performance Standards are intended to provide simple, straightforward guidance for those seeking to develop midrise projects on the Avenues.”

  But if you want to find some of the most truly unremarkable streets in this city, you need to look at the arterial roads that didn’t quite make the cut to be an Avenue. I don’t want to generalize, but they are generally exceedingly ugly. You can’t help but feel like Toronto has simply outgrown the low-rise building typologies that, in most cases, still remain on these streets. In some cases, they’re also directly adjacent to a subway station, which is kind of like running a great big movie theater with only a handful of seats inside. Maybe one day they’ll grow up to be Avenues. But don’t hold your breath. So what’s another possible solution? Toronto-based PHAEDRUS Studio has an idea. It’s called the Hi-Lo Hybrid.

  Initially designed for a specific client and a specific site, it also happens to be something that could be deployed all across the city. What they have shown here is a 5 storey infill building on your typical long and narrow Toronto lot. As designed, it could house 4-8 units, as well as some non-residential uses, on a lot that previously only had 1-3 units. It would make a lot of sense for some of the ugly streets that I’m talking about. But let’s be honest: it would be almost impossible to get approved. One of the biggest issues would probably be the adjacency/overlook issue that it generates with the neighboring backyards. It’s probably also too tall.

  One of the main reasons why, I think, laneway suites work and are now permissible as-of-right in Toronto is that they replace existing garages. (ADU’s for the Americans.) They reallocate space that was previously used for cars to humans. And so the incremental height / density is not all that great. They, for the most part, preserve precious neighborhood character. What the Hi-Lo Hybrid proposes is not so incremental. It’s bold. It would be a massive fight. I know that and you know that. But bold is generally what you need when you’re trying to do great things and when you’re trying to shape the future. And so with that, I’ll leave you all with some words from the late American architect, Daniel Burnham.

  “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty.”

  2021.01.04

• My 2021 predictions

  Life will feel a lot more normal by spring/summer (Q2). By this time, the various vaccines should be broadly available (at least in the developed world). This is something that never happened during the Spanish Flu. From what I have read, the Spanish Flu lasted about two years and there were four major waves, the second of which was by far the most deadly. Ultimately, a vaccine was never found. It just petered out as people developed immunity. But medicine then was not what it is today, so surely we are destined to do better.

  What happens with working from home is going to be one of the most important outcomes of 2021. Right now it feels like tech vs. commercial real estate. The tech industry has been quick to renounce offices (while many large tech companies continued to lease more space through 2020). And the commercial real estate industry has naturally pointed out that we’re all still going to need physical offices.

  My view is that, yes, people appreciate the flexibility of being able to work remotely, but that we’re greatly exaggerating the extent to which work is going to disperse in the short-term. I think it comes down to three main things. 1) It’s nice being around other humans, both in the office and for those after work drinks. 2) Collaborative and knowledge-intensive endeavors work better when people are in the same room. And 3) corporate politics will encourage people to return to the office. Who do you think is going to get promoted first, the person who Zooms in from the Caribbean for meetings or the person who shows up to the office and grinds it out every day?

  As the world returns to normal, we will, however, see an explosion in global travel. Many will be questioning how Airbnb’s sky-high valuation makes any sort of sense, but it’ll have the right story for what’s going on in the world (some people call these “story stocks”). The reality is that there will be a massive amount of pent up demand that starts to come out as soon as people start to feel safe and governments start to allow people to travel en masse. I’m already looking forward to the 2021-2022 ski season, which I fully expect to be a blockbuster season.

  Because of this, we will see a decline in recreational real estate. The kind that was fulfilling people’s need for local travel during this pandemic. Instead, people will turn their attention to more international experiences and try and make up for lost time. Many will also come to realize that the whole working from home thing didn’t stick as expected and so they’ll start deriving less utility from their property outside of the city. Expect a kind of reversion to the mean when it comes to prices.

  Urban/downtown real estate will strongly rebound in the second half of 2021. As restaurants reopen, as people return to offices, and as urban life in general resumes, we will see an increase in demand for condos/apartments, and probably larger urban spaces given the run-up in prices for single-family homes that many cities saw last year. (A bit more on this point can be found over here.)

  The trends that are being accelerated as a result of this pandemic are not going to stop, though their rate of increase will temper. The apps and platforms that people started using in 2020, perhaps for the first time, have established new habits. People’s credit cards are now on file and it’ll be very easy for those online habits to remain. But the opposing force to all of this will be the strong desire for socializing, travel, and novel experiences. It’ll be the more routine stuff that will continue to live entirely on our phones.

  The restaurant/food industry will bounce back in a slightly different form. Sadly, many businesses will have failed. But we will also see an explosion in new ideas and new concepts, satisfying our demand to be out socializing and trying new things throughout the new roaring twenties. Ghost kitchens and on-demand food delivery companies will continue to disaggregate how some restaurants are setup. Companies like Uber will see their ride-sharing businesses quickly snap back, which will more than offset the decline in food delivery as people resume eating out.

  Public transit ridership probably won’t return to its pre-pandemic levels until at least the fall. Possibly late fall. This is going to be a serious problem for the various levels of government that subsidize virtually all public transit authorities. Many transit networks have seen ridership declines of 70% or so and, if my timing projections are correct, that will have been the case for about a year and a half.

  The migration from high tax states (like California and New York) to low tax states (like Texas and Florida) will continue. This trend was well underway before COVID-19 and so I don’t see it reversing. What is perhaps more interesting to consider is how this dispersion of economic activity will ultimately play out against some of the centralizing/polarizing forces of the global economy. Urban agglomeration economies aren’t going to go away.

  To end, I will say that I think it’s safe to assume that we’re all looking forward to the world getting back to normal, whatever that happens to mean. But ironically, once that happens, I reckon that some of us might look back on this period of time and feel hints of nostalgia. Perhaps you learned a new skill or perhaps you were able to spend more time with love ones. Time and distance may better reveal these silver linings.

  Onward, my friends. What a time to be alive.

  2021.01.01

• A new Frame Home in Brooklyn

  Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) and Joanne Wilson (also an investor) have been working on a passive house apartment building in Brooklyn for the last five years. Their development company is called Frame Home. And this past week they received a pretty great Christmas gift in the form of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy from NYC Buildings.

  At 5 storeys and with only 10 two-bedroom units, you could classify this building as the kind “missing middle” housing that gets so much air time here in Toronto. And so not only have they managed to build relatively small, but they’ve done it using passive house design principles.

  Here are some of the apartment building’s features:

  • Cross-laminated timber (CLT) structure
  • Passive house design approach
  • Triple-pane windows
  • Interior polished and insulated concrete walls (presumably to act as a thermal mass to moderate heating/cooling throughout the year)
  • Solar panels installed on the upper facade and roof (passive house design should, in theory, allow these to supply a big chunk of the building’s energy needs)
  • No fossil fuels used throughout the building — everything is electrical
  • Fully sub-metered units
  • Outdoor circulation spaces/stairs, providing access to a shared rooftop courtyard (I’m assuming these also serve as required egress for the building)
  • Dedicated elevator entrance for every suite (i.e. no interior circulation/corridor spaces)
  • Composting facilities within the building
  • Bike room connected to the ground-floor lobby

  There’s also a co-working and community space planned for the ground floor called “Framework.” Interestingly enough, they have already responded to the current pandemic. Instead of open-air desks, you rent fully enclosed 8′ x 8′ pods that are sound-proofed and come with their own HVAC systems.

  Congratulations Fred and Joanne on such an exciting and pioneering project. (I would love to see the development pro forma!) If you’d like to learn more about Frame 283, here is their website and here is a profile that the New York Times did on the project back in January. Building with CLT is apparently prohibited in NYC. Frame 283 got an exemption.

  2020.12.25

• The case for density transition zones (and why people will probably hate them)

  Toronto is known for its tall buildings and its contrasting low-rise neighborhoods. More recently, we have seen a proliferation of mid-rise buildings along the city’s “Avenues.” This is despite the many challenges and costs associated with this building typology.

  But I think it’s pretty clear that a further evolution is also underway. Laneway housing, which is now permitted “as-of-right,” is in the early stages of being adopted and built out all across the city. And eventually I think we’ll see many of Toronto’s laneways evolve into fully fledged residential streets; perhaps not all that dissimilar from what you might find in compact cities like Tokyo.

  This is very exciting to me and I think of it as the city gaining a third hierarchy of residential streets. We’d have our major arteries and avenues. We’d have our residential side streets. And then we’d have our compact laneways. Dare I say that maybe some of these laneways could even house non-residential uses such as small-scale offices.

  

  But along with this shift, I think it’s time we look at another infill opportunity — something that planners Blair Scorgie and Sean Hertel are calling “density transition zones.” What these zones hope to be is a new middle transition zone between low-rise neighborhoods (where laneway suites are already permitted) and mid-rise avenues. A place where “missing middle” type housing might be built in close proximity to major streets and existing transit. Let’s call it a 100-200m zone that sits right behind our avenues.

  In my mind this is immediately beneficial for two reasons. The first is obvious. It could be a place for frictionless missing middle housing. Housing that’s more dense than a single family home + laneway suite, but less dense than a typical mid-rise building.

  The second immediate benefit is that this transition zone could be used to help improve the overall feasibility of mid-rise avenue development. The reality is that there are many blocks along Toronto’s avenues where the lot depths are simply too shallow for proper mid-rise buildings. Density transition zones could help with this, which would be not that dissimilar from how “Enhancement Zones” were intended to work (they were never approved).

  If this were to happen, I think there would also be a strong case for softening some of the “requirements” in the mid-rise design guidelines. Requirements like the 45 degree angular plane that new buildings generally need to conform to. All of this would only help the overall feasibility of more European-scaled developments along Toronto’s avenues and, in my opinion, that would be a great thing.

  But for the same reasons that Enhancement Zones were highly contentious, I would expect a lot of grouchy people and a lot of pushback on this idea. There will be concerns about encroaching on our single-family neighborhoods, and there will be the usual objections that come up with any new development (density, traffic, dog poo, etc.) But if we’re serious about building more missing middle housing, we are going to need to find ways to remove the barriers to entry. This scale of housing is simply too small to support a great deal of friction.

  To learn more about how density transition zones might work, I would encourage you to check out the great site that Blair and Sean have put together, over here.

  Image: Density Transition Zones

  2020.12.19

• Where people are moving in the US

  

  Another day, another set of announcements about large companies and rich people moving to lower cost US states. Yesterday it was announced that Oracle will move its corporate headquarters from Silicon Valley to Austin, Texas. (If you remember, Elon Musk also recently announced that he had moved himself to Austin from California.) The company has said that the move puts Oracle in the best position to grow and to give its employees greater flexibility about where and how they work.

  While these sorts of moves are making headlines right now, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not necessarily a new phenomenon. In fact, depending on how you look at it, you could argue that these headlines are a lagging indicator for trends that have been underway for some time. Below is a chart from New Geography showing the top 50 state-to-state moves last year. Number one is the move from California to Texas with 45,172 net movers. And number two is the move from New York to Florida with 38,512 net movers.

  

  According to New Geography, California saw a net domestic migration loss of 912,000 people from 2010 to 2019. And the most popular receiving states are what you would expect: Florida (1,230,000 people) and Texas (1,146,000 people). A big part of this story obviously has to do with housing affordability and the search for an overall lower cost of living. As well, since companies are always in need of young and smart talent, it makes since for them to locate in places where young and smart people want to live.

  But urbanists like Richard Florida have also pointed out at this relocation of companies could be a leading indicator for something else: the decline of innovation in America. Here, he argues that in the nascent stages of a new invention, there tends to be a tight clustering phenomenon. Think steel in Pittsburgh, cars in Detroit, and computing in Silicon Valley. However, as the industry matures, the tendency to centralize seems to decline and companies then start moving around.

  I’m not yet convinced that this is what’s happening. Because there seems to be a pile on happening in specific cities like Austin (which, by the way, I hear is terrific). Even before this pandemic, there was a growing sense (from the outside, mind you) that the Bay Area had simply gotten too expensive, both for individuals and for companies. It would seem that when you greatly restrict the supply of new housing and make it unattainable for many, people go find housing somewhere else. Sometimes in other states.

  Photo by Tomek Baginski on Unsplash

  2020.12.12

• How not to build missing middle housing

  Here is a good example of why “missing middle” housing is so challenging to build in Toronto, despite everyone talking about how great it would be if only we could build more of it.

  It’s the story of a minor variance application that was asking to sever a 50-foot lot at 2165 Gerrard Street East so that two semi-detached buildings and two laneway suites could be built. It would have added 10 family-sized rental units to a site that is on a streetcar line and that is within walking distance of both the subway and regional rail. And yet the consent to sever was denied.

  How come you ask?

  “I don’t believe dividing the property is in the best interest of the community,” said committee member Carl Knipfel, himself an architect and planner who complimented the beauty of the existing house and critiqued the design of the new buildings. “What is proposed is too dense … I really have serious concerns as to where this consent may lead us.”

  The last sentence is the best part.

  The article then goes on to argue that this is really all about the supremacy of single family homes and the desire to keep renters out of these neighborhoods. (Hey Airbnb, it’s not just short-term rentals that people have a problem with; it’s also long-term rentals.)

  The kicker, for Mr. Galbraith [the project’s planner], is he knows if he wanted to sever the lot for two single-family homes he could get that permission without delay and likely also get permission to build more than local zoning allows.

  “I can get variances for a one-unit McMansion every day of the week,” he said. “Lot coverage variances are very common; you want to take a bungalow down and make some big ugly house with a weird roof and a high first floor? You see those all over East York and Etobicoke.”

  If missing middle-type housing is “too dense” for sites that are endowed with every form of fixed rail transit that we have available in this city, then your guess is as good as mind as to where the hell it’s supposed to go. It’s time to grow up Toronto.

  2020.12.09