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: land use policies

  • What are the opportunity costs of not building new housing?

    The stated policy goal of inclusionary zoning is to to produce more affordable housing. We can debate who ultimately pays for this below-market housing, and we have many times before on the blog, but for the purposes of this post let’s just focus on its stated goal.

    Given this ambition, it makes sense to carefully measure the number of affordable homes produced. And that is ordinarily what is done: “We implemented this new policy on this date, and since then we have produced X amount of new affordable housing.”

    It is then likely that we will take X and form opinions on whether it was a successful policy or not. If X seems like a lot, then maybe we think it’s a good policy. And if X doesn’t seem like a lot, then maybe we think it was a bad policy, or perhaps just an ineffective one.

    But what is largely impossible to measure with any real precision is the number of new market-rate homes that are now not being built as a result of a policy. Let’s call this number Y. It is, of course, possible to come up with an estimate by looking broadly at rents across the city, plugging in some development costs, and seeing what pencils. But this is a rough approximation.

    It does not capture the countless times that a developer has looked at a possible housing site, only to come to the conclusion that it is not feasible to build. There is no official Y figure. And any amorphous estimates of Y are going to be easy to ignore by the general public anyway. Unbuilt homes? Opportunity costs? What?

    I am saying (okay repeating) all of this because I continue to feel like most people believe that development will just happen no matter what is thrown at it. There is a housing shortage, right? So developers should just do what they do best and build today. Surely they could if they were genuinely nice people and really wanted to. Hmm.

    What many people seem to ignore (or not know) is that development, and in turn new housing supply, operates under this very simple decision tree:

    • Find development site
    • Underwrite said site
    • If math works, seek capital/investors and then build
    • If math does not work, do not build
    • If math works, but capital doesn’t like it, also do not build (most can’t in this scenario)
    • Repeat

    Just because you aren’t seeing or noticing something, it does not mean that it doesn’t exist and that it’s not happening behind the scenes.

  • Leadership is a great burden

    I went to bed last night watching President Biden’s address to the Canadian Parliament (full transcript, here.). And I woke up this morning to this Globe and Mail article about Canadian competitiveness. In it, Tony Keller talks about some of the things that are broken in this country (shockingly housing comes up), and compares Canada to Argentina (an example of too many bad decisions) and to South Korea (an example of many good decisions).

    All of this got me thinking about leadership.

    Leadership is a great burden. As a leader, people are looking to you for decisions, for direction, and for you to instil confidence. They are also scrutinizing your every word and action. And in today’s world, they are waiting to criticize you on social media and/or make a funny meme out of your most recent misspeak. As a developer, I get to interface with municipal politicians probably more than your average person, and I can tell you with confidence that it is a thankless job I would never want.

    I can only imagine having to constantly worry about your employment and what people are thinking. Given this incentive structure, I’m sure we’d all act accordingly. It is truly public, service. At the same time, I know that it is not only unproductive — but dangerous — to pander to just what is thought to be politically popular. And we have spoken many times before on this blog about housing and land use policies that may be popular, but aren’t at all effective — or worse, are counterproductive.

    What we should be demanding from our leaders are difficult decisions. These are the decisions that probably feel uncomfortable and that may require some personal sacrifice, but that are ultimately the right decisions for our collective long-term prosperity. It is about ambitiously deciding where we want to go and who we want to become, and then taking meaningful actions, however unpopular they may be, to get there.

    Don’t just tell me what I want to hear. Lead me. Push me. Be bold. In the end, we will respect you for your personal sacrifices and the difficult decisions you are making on our behalf. This is the great burden — but also the great opportunity — of leadership, and it behooves us to empower it. To borrow from Tony Keller, “there’s no reason we [Canada] can’t be the most prosperous and successful society on earth.”

  • Learning from Kyoto’s machiya

    Japan has a building typology known as machiya. They are found throughout Japan, but my understanding is that they are most closely associated with downtown Kyoto. The typical machiya consists of a long wooden home with a narrow street frontage, and at least one interior courtyard garden.

    But perhaps the most interesting aspect of these townhouses is that, for the centuries that they have existed, they have always been mixed-used. The front of the building traditionally served as a kind of “shop space”, and the private residential spaces were tucked behind it (though this line between public and private was fairly fluid).

    And so for hundreds of years, the humble machiya became a flexible building typology that allowed shops, restaurants, and various other small businesses to flourish. This has changed over the years. People went off to work in offices and Western ideals around housing started to infiltrate Japan, among other reasons. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t important lessons to be learned from Kyoto’s machiya.

    Here in Toronto, we remain deeply terrified of things like triplexes creeping into our single-family neighborhoods and we remain reticent to allow non-residential uses outside of their designated areas. Old habits die hard.

    But take a walk, cycle, or drive across one of our non-Avenue-designated arterial roads (which I did yesterday), and it’s hard not to imagine something much better. My mind immediately goes to an improved streetscape with (1) less on-street parking, (2) a lot more homes (as-of-right), and (3) flexible ground floor permissions that allow for crazy things like a “shop space”.

    And then, what kind of city might we have if we had fewer barriers in the way of infill housing and if we allowed for low-cost spaces that could flex up and down based on the needs of small entrepreneurs? I’m pretty sure it would be a better one. And of course, it’s been done before.

    Photo by Akira Deng on Unsplash

  • What should Toronto do with its major streets?

    The City of Toronto’s Official Plan directs growth to areas of the city that it refers to as Centres, Avenues, Employment Areas, and the Downtown. In other words, these are the areas where most new development is intended to take place. So if you own land in one of these areas, it is probably worth more than if it were outside of them, all other things being equal.

    Avenues are what you might expect. They are major streets that run throughout the city (pink ones in the above map). But not all major streets are “Avenues.” There are lots of major streets that provide connectivity across the city but still feel like residential streets (tired ones I might add) and that have land use policies that only allow low-rise housing. I have always viewed this as a mismatch and I have long been critical of it on the blog.

    But as part of the City’s Expanding Housing Options in Neighourhoods (EHON) initiative, this exact problem is being looked at. And I think it is one of the most important land use studies currently underway in the city. Because if we are truly serious about housing affordability and our low-carbon goals, we are going to need to blanket our city with a lot more transit-supportive density. And our major streets are great place to start.

    I just hope that everyone involved will be as bold and visionary as possible. If you have any thoughts, please leave them in the comment selection below. And for the latest on this study, click here. It is an agenda item at next month’s Planning and Housing Committee meeting.

  • How to repair America’s broken housing systems

    As a general rule I don’t like to recommend books that I haven’t read yet. And so I’m not here today to recommend Jenny Schuetz’s new book about how to repair America’s crumbling housing policies. Instead, I’m just telling you all about it. You can then do your own research and decide if it’s worthy of your time. The premise sounds good though:

    Unequal housing systems didn’t just emerge from natural economic and social forces. Public policies enacted by federal, state, and local governments helped create and reinforce the bad housing outcomes endured by too many people. Taxes, zoning, institutional discrimination, and the location and quality of schools, roads, public transit, and other public services are among the policies that created inequalities in the nation’s housing patterns.

    This may be confirmation bias at work but I continue to feel like there’s a groundswell of interest in housing reform. In particular, there seems to be a growing interest in rethinking the privileges that we have decided to bestow upon low-rise housing (at least in this part of the world). But of course, that’s only one part of what is ultimately a complex set of systems.

  • Building cool things is not as easy as it may seem

    There was a good discussion on Twitter this morning about small-scale commercial uses in residential neighborhoods, like the coffee shop shown above on Shaw Street. In most residential neighborhoods in Toronto, this kind of commercial activity is not permitted if you were to try and initiate it today. The small convenience stores and bodegas that remain are often legal non-conforming uses. And while generally considered desirable in their current confirm, if you were to try and make a change, you could get caught in some municipal red tape where your grandfathered status suddenly no longer applies.

    That is exactly what happened in the case of the above coffee shop and, from the discussions that happened on Twitter this morning, it is a problem that is not unique to Toronto. Alex Bozikovic wrote about this coffee shop and this project in the Globe and Mail over seven years ago. Getting it approved and built was no easy task. And my friend Jeremiah Shamess — who renovated a similar and formerly commercial corner building in the area — ran into the exact same challenges.

    But let’s consider the other side of this argument for a minute. It’s easy to look at a great and well-designed neighborhood coffee shop like this one and say to yourself that it is obviously a desirable use and that we should be encouraging more of them in our residential neighborhoods. But what if it was a noisy late-night bar, a nail salon, or a massage parlor? Would your opinion change? Would it change if you were an immediate neighbor? It is perhaps easy to see why the fear of the things we don’t want has led us to sterilize our neighborhoods to the point where we no longer allow the things that we may in fact want.

    And herein lies the immense frustration that many of us have with our land use policies. There are countless examples of obviously desirable uses and built forms that are exceedingly difficult to execute on because of the barriers that we ourselves have put in place. Whether it’s a cool neighborhood coffee shop or new affordable housing, there are far too many examples of these sorts of projects being stuck in some kind of planning ether — sometimes for decades. We say and know that we want these things, but then it is frequently the case that we can’t get out of the way so that they can actually happen.

  • Barriers to entry: Salvador vs. Toronto

    Netflix has a new docuseries out about Latin American street food. I watched two episodes of it last night. The first was about a chef from Buenos Aires, Argentina and the second was about a chef — named Dona Suzana — from Salvador, Brazil. Even if you aren’t necessarily into food shows, it’s a good way to remind yourself just how much you probably miss traveling right now.

    The story of Dona Suzana is an interesting one. Before opening her restaurant, she was doing laundry in order to make ends meet. Then at one point, the City of Salvador came to her community in order to undertake a large construction project. They needed someone to cook food for the construction workers and so they asked her if she would do it.

    Since she had always dreamed of being a chef, she jumped at the opportunity and took out a loan to buy everything she needed in order to fit out her kitchen. She cooked for the workers and everyone loved the food. But she never ended up getting paid. They stiffed her.

    That turned her off cooking for a bit and it was not until a trio of graffiti artists were working in her community and looking for a place to eat that she tried her hand at it again. They offered to pay her in advance and persuaded her to make them something. She agreed and the food was a huge hit.

    In fact, the group of artists loved the food so much that they made her a sign with the name “RéRestaurante” (titled this way because Dona has a stutter) and began sharing photos of her dishes on social media. All of a sudden she had people showing up at her door. And today she has people from all around the world showing up at her door.

    This is a wonderful success story. But I think it also says something about land use policies. As far as I can tell from the episode, she setup her restaurant at her place of residence — a community along the waterfront where her husband fishes and where she uses his catches for her renowned dishes.

    Here in Toronto, we are operating in an environment where if you try and setup a coffee shop in a residential “Neighbourhood” — like, for example, Contra at 1028 Shaw Street — you might spend a few years fighting with your neighbors and battling it out at LPAT hearings in order to get the appropriate permissions.

    I’m not necessarily suggesting that we should do away with all zoning (or maybe I am). But I would like to draw your attention to this contrast. Because one has to wonder whether RéRestaurante Dona Suzana would exist today and be known around the world had the barriers to entry not been so low for her. Of course, had there been more rules, maybe she wouldn’t have gotten stiffed the first time around.

    Either way, I am currently in the market for some dende oil.

    Photo by Milo Miloezger on Unsplash

  • One year of Inclusionary Housing in Portland

    image

    About a year ago, Portland enacted “Inclusionary Housing” policy requiring new apartment buildings of 20 units or more to offer up a portion of the units at below market rents.

    Developers are able to select from a few different options and the rents are calculated according to a percentage of the city’s median family income (30-80%). I’m not sure how this policy would apply to new condo buildings.

    This is an interesting account by The Portland Mercury of what this policy may be doing to the housing market. I say may because it’s only been a year and there could be other factors at play.

    Between 2013 and 2017, Portland typically built between 3,000 and 6,000 new units per year. Since the IH policy went into effect on February 1, 2017, 682 new units have applied for permit. 

    About half are coming from one developer who appears to be building the requisite affordable units in exchange for no parking minimums. They are now proposing buildings with zero parking.

    Again, in all fairness, it’s only been a year. But already Mayor Ted Wheeler is looking at other incentives to encourage more new construction in the central city. The biggest levers: height and density.

    All of this begins to speak to the very real impact of inclusionary zoning on development feasibility.

    Photo by Zach Savinar on Unsplash

  • How should mid-sized cities really compete?

    Jennifer Keesmaat – the former chief planner of Toronto – recently published an article in Maclean’s called: Toronto’s unaffordable. Why can’t Halifax or Saskatoon take advantage? Her argument: 

    “The hard truth is that many mid-sized cities won’t win the future because they are stuck on a suburban growth model. If the future is green and walkable, they will be left behind.”

    The model city that is held up is Portland – a terrific mid-sized city of only 640,000 people that has used progressive land use policies to build a livable and dense urban center. (In all fairness, the Portland MSA has over 2.4 million people.)

    Now, if you’re a regular reader of this blog you’ll know that I have a penchant for dense urban centers. I live and I work downtown. And I would happily trade square footage for a more sensible commute and lower transportation costs.

    But after I read the article, I couldn’t help but think that progressive land use policies, alone, aren’t enough. Cities, like social networks, experience network effects. That’s why there’s so much talk these days of winner-take-all urbanism.

    All of this is not to say that progressive urban policies are a bad thing. Quite the opposite. I just think there are many other factors at play if we’re talking about taming the hegemony of our global cities.

  • The impact of inclusionary zoning on development feasibility

    image

    After my recent post on inclusionary zoning in Ontario, I was asked to provide my comments on the draft regulation and on how inclusionary zoning could and will impact development feasibility. So I will endeavor to do that today.

    It’s important to first understand the costs and inputs that go into a development pro forma and how overall project feasibility is determined. For simplicity, let’s breakdown the costs as follows:

    – Land

    – Soft Costs

    – Financing Costs

    – Municipal Fees/Charges

    – Hard Costs

    All of these costs buckets are significant. For a project to be feasible, you obviously need the revenues of the project to be greater than the above costs. There also needs to be a remaining profit margin that is commensurate with the risk profile of the project and that meets your investor’s return expectations. Most developers rely on outside equity and debt to finance their projects.

    One of the misconceptions that I often hear is that people seem to think that the profit margin on projects is so great that developers could simply build affordable housing (or do many other things) if they weren’t so greedy. The reality is that development happens on the margin. It’s not easy to find sites and projects that make any sort of financial sense. More often than not they don’t.

    The other reality is that in a growing market all of the above costs are also continually increasing. If revenue (i.e. rents and condo prices) is also growing, as has been the case here in Toronto for many many years, then developers can generally absorb reasonable increases and continue building. But if revenue stops growing, grows at a slower pace or, worse, shrinks, then feasibility could disappear and development would stop.

    Now let’s talk specifically about inclusionary zoning. IZ is typically an incentivized or mandated requirement to provide a certain number of below-market housing units as part of new developments. Affordable housing is important. That’s why a number of cities already have inclusionary zoning policies – though it remains a fairly controversial tool.

    From a development feasibility standpoint, a mandatory inclusionary zoning requirement represents a decrease in revenue. There’s now a percentage of the units that can no longer be rented or sold at market prices. And so to maintain the project’s feasibility – because remember development happens on the margin – something has got to change.

    There are a few options.

    Option One: You could simply try and pay less for the land. As we have talked about many times on this blog, land is supposed to be the residual claimant. Work backwards from revenues and your other costs to determine what can be paid for the land. The problem with this option is that land prices tend to be sticky.

    Many or most landowners don’t give a shit about your development pro forma. They often have a number in mind and if you try and tell them that development charges just went up and you can’t pay as much for their land, they’ll simply sit on it and wait for someone else – even if that means waiting for the market to catch up (i.e. waiting for rents to go up).

    Option Two: Charge more for the remaining market units. If the market is sufficiently robust, perhaps this is an option. This is one of the reasons why inclusionary zoning often produces more units in markets where there’s already strong demand for new housing.

    But it’s also one of the reasons why IZ is controversial. You’re asking the other renters/buyers in the project to effectively subsidize the below market units. And there is research out there (previously posted on this blog) suggesting that in some instances IZ policies have created additional upward pressure on market rents and home prices.

    Option Three: Incentives are provided by the municipality to offset some or all of the additional burden placed on the project. This could come in the form of a density bonus, financial contribution, a waiving of other municipal charges/fees, and so on.

    Though I have questions about the details, this is something that was proposed in Ontario’s draft regulation (albeit not to the extent that the industry wanted). Now you know why I said and why I believe that these offsets are important to the industry and to overall housing affordability.

    My hope with this post was to provide the developer’s perspective, but also take a very matter of fact approach to inclusionary zoning. Most people recognize the importance of affordable and accessible housing. The question is how best to execute.

    Photo by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash