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.
The Coalition Against New-Home Taxes (or CANT) is a group of home builders, led by Matt Young of Republic Developments, who are asking all levels of government in Canada to lower the taxes on new homes. In some cities, these taxes — which include everything from development charges to HST — can account for up to 30% of the cost of a new home. This is bad for housing affordability and runs counter to our publicly stated goals. So to drive this point home, the group created a cheeky game called Taxopoly: The Unwinnable Game of Canadian Homeownership. (Credit to Blackjet for the idea and design.) I don’t think that the average buyer understands what kind of taxes are being levied on new homes, and so kudos to CANT for being a loud advocate for positive change. To learn more, sign their pledge, and/or email your representative, here’s their website.
I had a call with a developer in Paris earlier this week and it was interesting to hear him talk about the new home market over there. It sounded a lot like Toronto. Higher interest rates cooled demand. Individual investors largely disappeared. And now developers are having to rethink their strategies and floor plans (including suite sizes).
But in his view, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It now means that you actually have to be a reasonably good developer in order to have a chance at succeeding. You have to design thoughtful floor plans and build great housing. It’s a return to fundamentals, and I would argue that the same thing is happening here in Toronto.
My other noteworthy takeaway was around social housing. All new developments in the Île-de-France region are subject to inclusionary zoning. I believe the requirement is 30% of the suites. These suites are then purchased by social housing operators, and it is one of the ways that new supply is created in the market.
We talk a lot about IZ on this blog, but what’s interesting about this approach is that it becomes a forward sale for the developer. Meaning, it helps to de-risk projects. Before doing anything, you know you’ve sold 30% of your inventory, and somehow the numbers all work. European social housing math is baffling to me.
I am now wondering if this creates some kind of incentive to keep development costs in check. Because if social housing operators are expected to buy 30% of all new homes, then they too are going to want them to be as cost effective as possible. I’m speculating though; I don’t know that this is the case.
If you’re a developer or real estate person in Paris, please get in touch. I’d love to learn more about your market and trade notes.
Vancouver just put forward a bold proposal to encourage more social, or non-market housing, across the city. As drafted, new social housing projects up to 6 storeys would be permitted as-of-right in “villages” and social housing between 15-18 storeys would be permitted as-of-right in “neighborhood centers.” This is a big deal. I mean, look at the above map. Between these two area designations, big chunks of the city would receive these new permissions. For more information on the proposal, check out this short video.
Here is a recent chart from Mike Moffat showing how much development charges have increased in the City of Toronto from 2009 to today:
We’ve, of course, seen this before. Back in 2020, I shared an article that developer Urban Capital published where they did a cost comparison between a project they had done in 2005 and a project they were doing in 2020. What they uncovered was that development charges alone had increased by 3,244%! The most of any line item in their pro forma.
Development charges over the last real estate cycle have been an insidious problem. Meaning, the industry knew they were crazy high, and we were all trying to be vocal about it, but let’s face it — the general public doesn’t have a lot of sympathy for developers complaining about high fees. They are also largely hidden from purchasers and renters. The charges just get lumped in.
If our industry could figure out how to be more transparent and separate out these charges, much like a sales tax, I think it would go a long way to showing consumers what they’re actually paying when it comes to new housing. And then maybe something positive would happen. Because this is a major reason why new housing has gotten so expensive in this region.
Can you imagine if property taxes had increased by 3,244% over the last 15 years? I can’t. Because no one would have ever allowed that to happen.
For better and for worse, the current market is going to serve as a rude awakening for municipalities. We’ve reached the breaking point. The housing market is, as we’ve talked about, in a “state of economic lockdown.” And when people don’t buy new homes, it means developers no longer have the money to pay development charges.
This week, Urbanation released its condominium market update for Q1-2024. And I’d like to point out two data points. Firstly, across the Greater Toronto & Hamilton Area (GTHA), there were 1,461 new condominium sales for the quarter.
This is the lowest quarterly total since Q1-2009 (the global financial crisis) and the second lowest total since the mid-1990s. (Remember when we spoke about right now being the toughest market since the early 90s?)
Secondly, during this same time period, 2,361 new condominiums began construction across the region. This represents a 52% annual decrease. So all in all, fewer people are buying new homes and fewer new homes are starting construction.
What is obvious is that the market is slow right now. What is not obvious is what happens next. It’s unknowable. There’s risk. My gut is that the market will come back more slowly than many people are expecting, or perhaps hoping. There’s inventory that needs to work its way through the system first.
But ultimately it will come back. Toronto is one of the greatest cities in the world and there remains a need for more homes. Which is why I continue to believe that, if you are in the market for a new one, now is arguably a wonderful time. You get to buy when most others aren’t.
Last month we spoke about how our current economic environment is going to negatively impact housing supply in the short-term. Now here’s some further evidence for this argument (via Bloomberg):
“As rates started ticking up, the faucet started to turn off,” says Jonathan Gertman, senior vice president for development at the NRP Group, one of the largest multifamily housing developers in the country. “The number of projects starting this year already has been cut significantly. Anything that started in 2022, in most of the country, comes online 18 to 24 months later. So by the middle of 2025, you see that new supply start to go down significantly.”
This is also being reflected in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan applications for new multi-family housing:
Or put another way: FHA multifamily loan applications are on track to total as much as $18 billion for FY 2023, compared with $29 billion for FY 2022, $51 billion for FY 2021 and $45 billion for FY 2020.
The above article is specifically talking about a looming affordable housing shortage. But these exact same headwinds are also impacting new market-rate housing. Of course, there’s always a lag when it comes to development. So it’ll likely be a few years until we really feel the impacts.
Here’s some data (via Jeremy Withers) explaining that a large portion — about 61% — of new condominiums built in Ontario between 2016 and 2021 were not owner-occupied. In the case of low-rise houses, the figure is lower — about 24%.
Now, the premise of Jeremy’s tweet storm is that non-owner-occupied housing is bad and that the government should be doing more to discourage this. Simply taxing and restricting foreign buyers is not enough (and I agree that this is mostly symbolic).
But is non-owner occupied really such a bad thing?
First of all, non-owner occupied implies that somebody else is renting the place. I don’t think that a significant chunk of these homes are being left vacant. So isn’t the fact that somewhere around 61% of all new condominium apartments are becoming rental housing something that is potentially positive?
One counter argument would be that these investors are bidding up new home prices and squeezing out end users. But that brings me to my second point: small-scale individual investors are a critical ingredient in the delivery of new condominium housing in Ontario.
This point cannot be overstated.
The lender requirement to pre-sell suites in order to obtain construction financing means that developers rely heavily on buyers who are willing to purchase many many years before occupancy. And this is generally a lot more challenging for end users, as we have talked about many times before.
So if it weren’t for investors, I am certain that we would see a lot less new housing getting built. And in turn, that would mean a lot less new rental housing getting built.
We have spoken about this topic — of larger family-sized suites — many times before on the blog. And my argument then, as it is now, is that the largest barrier is cost. We can talk about cultural biases (which I do think exist in North America) and, sure, we can talk about how to better design for families. But until we solve the problem of costs or until low-rise housing gets so prohibitively expensive that it tips the scales in favor of multi-family buildings, I’m not sure we’re going to see a meaningful shift.
To be fair, it does appear that the number of families living in apartments and condominiums is increasing here in Toronto. My neighbor is one data point. However, broadly speaking, I don’t think it’s happening with the “larger family-sized suites” that most people imagine in their minds when they talk about this opportunity.
So how do we address this? There are a number of interesting ideas in the above Twitter thread that I would encourage you to check out. Ratcheting down or eliminating development charges (and other government levies) on larger suites is one of them. But what is obvious is that this is a challenging problem to solve. So the brutally honest answer is that I don’t really know what will be most effective. But here are three potential places to start.
As-of-right mid-rise buildings
Remove the barriers to building more mid-rise. One irony of mid-rise buildings is that they are probably the most desirable form of multi-family housing and yet they’re the most expensive to build. A lot of this has to do with construction costs and other unavoidable diseconomies of scale, but there are other things we can do. In my view, we should target to make all mid-rise buildings fully as-of-right. This means no rezoning costs, no community meetings, and overall simpler designs. Instead, the rough process should be: buy site, work on permit drawings, and start marketing new homes.
“Growth Pays For Growth” is one of the big lies at the root of Canada’s housing crisis. https://t.co/IW5LMr5tns
— your local self-inflicted housing crisis ouroboros (@itsahousingtrap) June 3, 2023
This is also something that we talk a lot about on this blog. But most people outside of the industry don’t think of it in this way, or they don’t care. The mantra is that “growth pays for growth”, which obviously sounds good. Tax new housing based on its impacts. But in reality this is not what’s happening. What is happening is that “growth pays for as much as possible as long as new home prices keep rising.” And it persists partially because nobody except evil developers see these large bills. But if we really want to make new housing more affordable and if we really want to encourage more families in new multi-family buildings, then we need a more equitable solution.
Financing new family-sized homes
The way we finance new homes impacts the kind of housing that gets built. Here in Toronto, new condominium projects generally require a certain percentage of pre-sales, because construction lenders want as much certainty as possible that they will get their money back upon completion. In theory, it also reduces the chance of overbuilding because you’ve pre-sold most/all of the homes. So there are obvious benefits to this approach. However, the problem is that you need people to now buy in advance. And oftentimes, the people buying early aren’t families who expect to need 3 bedrooms in 5.2 years. Should there be another financing solution for larger homes?
Once again, these are just three potential places to start. But I think they’re all critically important. If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please leave them in comment section below.
One criticism that you will sometimes hear about development is that the construction of new housing can spur gentrification. The thinking, I think, is that when you create new market-rate housing, richer people will then move in and the area will begin (or continue) its ascent upwards.
If on the other hand, one were to just stop developing new housing, then the neighborhood would remain stable and static and the fear of gentrification would simply go away. But the flaw in this line of thinking is that it assumes no infill development equals some sort of urban homeostasis.
Cities are constantly changing. The reality is that what we are talking about, particularly in the case of low-rise single-family areas, is that we want the physical character of neighborhoods to remain more or less the same. But what happens on the inside is whatever.
What you are seeing here are 4 electricity meters, meaning that at some point this structure housed 4 separate homes. But 3 of the 4 meters have now been removed, which presumably means that this structure has been converted (probably back) to a single-family home. So this is 4 homes being reduced to 1.
I don’t know what this place looks like on the outside, but I’m going to guess that not much has changed in terms of its physical character. It probably looks about the same. But this is still gentrification; it is still an example of a neighborhood moving upmarket.
The irony is that we tend to be generally okay with this change. We are okay with reducing the number of homes in a neighborhood so long as it happens in a largely inconspicuous and convenient way. But what we are (sometimes) not okay with is increasing the number of homes in a neighborhood. Apparently that creates too much pressure on the existing housing stock.
Okay, so maybe this isn’t an entirely definitive guide. But the intent is to make this post a kind of working post. As new ideas emerge (from my end or from your ends), I will endeavor to update it, so that maybe one day it will become a bit more definitive. I also think it’s important to keep it a little crazy. Because housing affordability is clearly a tough problem to solve, so unless we start thinking differently and acting boldly, we may not get there.
Here goes.
Encourage new housing at all scales (low, mid, high)
“Upzone” all major streets and transit station areas
Allow multi-unit dwellings in low-rise neighborhoods and ensure that any applicable codes and/or policies are not creating unnecessary obstacles to building at this scale
Work to make the largest possible housing scale permissible on an as-of-right basis — that is, remove the rezoning process wherever possible and allow builders to go right to a building permit (a lengthy rezoning process can cost millions)
Avoid the use of inclusionary zoning policies that do not provide an equal offset or subsidy (such as a density bonus)
Ensure that any development charges and levies are commensurate with the burdens created by new housing and that existing property owners are funding their fair share through property taxes
Identify the areas that are NOT seeing new housing and then create incentives to make development feasible
Search for underutilized land and other opportunities to add new housing — no land parcel should be considered too small
Incentivize small-scale prototypes as a way to test out new ideas and foster innovation — specifically with respect to climate change and construction productivity
Eliminate all parking minimums – no ifs, ands, or buts
Depoliticize the planning process as much as possible — local politicians are not generally incentivized to encourage new housing
Eliminate the ability for individuals to block or significantly delay new housing
Ensure that there are enough staff to expeditiously review and process development and building permit applications — if builders are hiring “expediters” in the hopes of moving these things along, it means something is broken
Put in place strict response and issuance timelines for building permits
Bonus city staff (and anyone else who touches housing supply) based on the number of housing units approved and permitted each year
Design smaller and more urban-friendly garbage trucks so that less space is lost in every new housing development
