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: new housing

  • Multiple paths to a quick yes

    I have heard a number of people describe this blog as covering all that is new. That wasn’t my explicit goal when I started writing it. My goal was simply to focus on cities and all the wonderful things that shape them. But it turns that new ideas form a big part of that and that I am very interested in new ideas. Change is what moves the world forward.

    Of course, there is no shortage of new ideas. We all have brilliant ideas. Maybe you’re looking at Toronto’s public garbage bins right now and thinking to yourself, “You know what, I have some terrific ideas for how these could be greatly improved.” And chances are, your ideas are good ones. The problem, however, is that ideas are fleeting. The real challenge is bringing them to fruition before they die.

    So here are a few thoughts that came to mind this morning:

    • There is a difference between incremental improvements and directional/fundamental change. Generally speaking, we tend to be naturally better at ideas related to the former than the latter. When we look at a Toronto garbage bin on the street and see it overflowing with rubbish and see all its side panels swung open, we intuitively see the problems. But it is less common to think about, oh I don’t know, subterranean garbage networks for moving refuse around or networked robots that come out at night and tidy our streets with purple brooms. This is also why when we come up with something new like a horseless carriage or an iPhone, we often name them after the thing we already know and are familiar with, even though it probably undersells how meaningful the change is. It helps our minds make the leap.
    • Many organizations have separate decision making processes that depend on the above. Amazon, for example, likes to ensure that incremental improvements have “multiple paths to yes” within the company. Again, these are the more intuitive kind of changes and so you don’t want some brilliant, yet fragile, idea to get killed by some naysayer along the way. You want as many of them being implemented as possible. On the other hand, ideas that might change the direction of the company are typically slowed down and carefully deliberated. This is a common split. “Major decisions” go up to some greater governance body; whereas all other day-to-day decisions just get made on the fly by those “in the field”. This is one way to keep things moving quickly.
    • On a related note, venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote today about the virtues of small and flat partnerships when it comes to early-stage investing (but I don’t think the lesson only applies to this sector). In his view, the biggest venture winners — at least when it comes to early-stage companies — often come from the most “controversial and out there” ideas. And to make these sorts of bets it is helpful to have a small and flat team with a lot of trust. I found this particular insight really interesting because it implies that when you have the opposite — big and hierarchical organizations — you naturally start to lose your ability to experiment with non-consensus ideas. And so what you’re likely left with is just the intuitive and incremental stuff.
    • Recently, we also spoke about the argument that generations view change differently. Young people are often more open to new ideas, at least partially because they view it as a way for them to make their mark on the world. Older generations, on the other hand, often view change as a threat to their current position in the world. None of this is universally true, but think about how this often plays out with new housing. Young people view housing supply as a way for them to buy or rent something new and form their own household. Whereas already established households can view it as a threat to their community and their existing way of life.

    These are a broad set of thoughts. But if there are any lessons to extract from these bullet points it is perhaps these: One, consider the kind of decision that needs to be made. Is it something incremental and intuitive? Is it an obviously sound infill housing project? Because if so, you want multiple paths to a quick yes. And two, consider who gets a say and who controls the decision. Because the wrong group dynamic can kill even the best new ideas.

  • Our cities are full

    One of the most common objections to new housing is that the place is already too crowded and potentially even full. But Jerusalem Demsas’ recently article in The Atlantic about how much people seem to hate other people is a good reminder that the topic of overpopulation can be a complicated one.

    Because what are we really saying when we say a place is too crowded or full? Is it just that this particular neighborhood is full, or are we talking about entire cities being full?

    Moreover, who determines when a place is full? Berkeley, California is, for example, a hell of a lot less dense than a city like Paris. So if a place like Berkeley can be considered full by some people, what does that mean for Paris? Presumably it’s entirely unliveable.

    Or could it be that the entire world is simply full and we should be looking at more drastic measures to curb population growth (in the places that are actually reaching replacement-level fertility rates)?

    It’s all very complicated. Thankfully Demsas offers up some possible solutions in her article:

    We have, of course, discovered an elusive technology to allow more people to live on less land: It’s called an apartment building. And if people would like fewer neighbors competing for parking spaces, then they should rest assured that buses, trains, protected bike lanes, and maintained sidewalks are effective, cutting-edge inventions available to all.

    The rest of the article is just as good.

  • Housing supply across Ontario

    Here are a few Ontario / Toronto housing supply charts taken from this recent blog post by Mike Moffat (an assistant professor at Ivey Business School):

    So what do these tell us?

    Well, 2015 was a banner year for the supply of new apartments/condominiums in the City of Toronto. And supply, in general, has been ticking upward for apartments across the province.

    But if you’re in the market for a new single-detached, semi-detached, or row house, supply is on the decline in the Toronto CMA. You’re likely going to have to go further out for that.

    This, of course, makes sense. The Toronto CMA has been built out. Most of the new growth is now going to need to take place through intensification, which usually means apartments and condominiums.

    Though obvious, I think all of this is an important reminder. Because the more difficult and the more expensive we make it to build in our already built-up areas, the more we are encouraging sprawl in “Ontario outside of Toronto CMA.”

    At the same time, we are also making it more financially challenging for families to remain in the city. We can talk all we want about 3-bedroom suites and ways to make them more accommodating to children, but that doesn’t mean much if people can’t afford them.

  • Zoned housing supply vs. actual housing supply

    This Twitter thread by UC Davis Law Professor, Chris Elmendorf, is a good reminder that there can be a meaningful difference between actual completed homes and zoned land that might one day becoming new housing.

    The point he makes is as follows: The state of California’s housing needs allocation for the city of San Francisco is approximately 80,000 new homes over the next decade. In the past, cities could demonstrate that they were able to meet these targets through, as I understand it, some fairly loose assumptions. But more recently, amendments have made it such that the probability of new homes actually getting built needs to be considered.

    San Francisco has been doing this and, according to Chris, the conclusion was that the city should upzone portions of the city — primarily on the west side — to allow for some 22,000 new homes. Sounds cool. But as part of this process, the city also hired an outside consultant to run indicative pro formas and assess overall development feasibility. This is what they found:

    I haven’t seen any of the actual numbers, but what this chart is saying is that nobody is going to develop on the west side of the city no matter what entitlements you put in place (tier 3 and tier 4 market areas). The only new development that is likely to take place is high-rise development over 24 storeys in the highest value submarkets (tier 1 and tier 2 market areas).

    Based on this, the 22,000 new homes figure is probably closer to 0 new homes.

  • Some 60,000 condominium units were purchased last year in Toronto

    So 2021 was a pretty good year for condominiums here in the Greater Toronto Area. According to the latest data (Q4-2021) from Urbanation, this is what happened last year:

    • 30,844 new condominium sales. This is a 69% increase compared to 2020, which saw 18,282 new unit sales.
    • Fourth quarter alone saw 8,361 unit sales, which is the best quarter on record according to Urbanation.
    • Unsold inventory dropped 26% year-over-year because sales exceeded the number of new project launches by over 4,000 units.
    • Average price for an unsold condominium unit in Q4-2021 reached $1,322 psf, which is an 18% increase compared to the year before.
    • Resale condominiums also did exceptionally well with 29,880 unit sales — a 49% annual increase.
    • All in all, some 60,000 condominium units were purchased last year in the GTA. Of course, some were ready to be lived in and some were future homes.

  • Drive until you qualify

    The “drive until you qualify” approach to finding housing that you can afford is a well established practice. Anecdotally, I can tell you that I have friends who are right now looking for a grade-related home under the C$1 million mark. This constraint, as most of you know, is pushing them to the outer reaches of Toronto’s suburbs. But if it were up to them, it would be their preference to stay in the city. According to the “two millennials” behind The Habistat, the average distance of an entry level detached house from the Toronto core (defined as a 3 bed, 1 bath under $800,000) is now 81.8km.

    There’s a lot to be said about this. For one, home prices across many/most markets are way up. Earlier this week on the blog it was mentioned that the average price of a US home is up about 19% year-over-year. This is likely unsustainable. We are coming off of a period of easy money policies and at some point things will normalize along with the broader economy. Looking at the equity and crypto markets, it may be happening right now, but I don’t really know. (Fred Wilson wrote a post last year calling this “one of the great asset bubbles of modern times.”)

    We know that the centralizing forces inherent to most cities have been weakened during this pandemic. For periods of time, they were completely off. So it is no surprise that we have seen greater decentralization (sprawl) than what might have ordinarily happened. I was in a (zoom) meeting this past week with somebody who has spent the last two years traveling around South America while working remotely. It sounded like a lot of fun and I was admittedly a little bit envious of her adventures. But as I argued at the beginning of this year, I think most people are going back to offices and this centralizing force will have an impact on real estate.

    Because “driving until you qualify” is a function of an affordability constraint, it tells you certain things about consumer preference, but not all things. What I mean by this is that it tells you that somebody is willing to trade the cost of a commute for more space and/or the housing type of their choice. This has been an easier trade during COVID because the cost of commuting has been relatively — albeit temporarily — low for many people. So less of a discount for distance. But what I think this doesn’t tell you is what true consumer preference would be if all things were more equal and we increased housing supply and options in other areas of our cities.

    At the same time, there’s a very real question of whether the measuring stick in the above chart should be a grade-related detached house? Is this a reasonable expectation in the same way it was for prior generations? I am not a fan of dictating what people should and shouldn’t do. But maybe 100km away from the core becomes untenable. And again, maybe if we increased both supply and options, we would find new housing preferences revealing themselves. I am specifically thinking of those who would prefer to stay in the city, but can’t find something they think is suitable.

    At the end of the day, we can’t ignore the fact that we are profoundly hypocritical when it comes to the delivery of new housing. We acknowledge that we’re in a housing crisis and we acknowledge that we need more affordable housing (both for sale and for rent), and yet we continue to make it systematically more difficult and more expensive to deliver it. The development charges, parkland fees, and many other costs that continue to increase and get applied to new housing are a real worry to those in the industry.

    It is a worry because we’re all wondering how much price elasticity is left in the market. That is, how much more can consumers afford before they stop buying and renting? It is a worry because it means that new rental housing, which has always been a challenge to pencil in our market, is now completely infeasible in many more submarkets. Our solution to all of this is to mandate a certain number of affordable units in new developments. But this is yet another tax on new housing.

    To be fair, the delivery of new housing is subject to countless competing interests. This is arguably why it is such a tricky problem to solve and why there are no easy answers. But that’s what we do around here. We explore new ideas. And maybe, just maybe, there are other options besides just driving until you qualify. Next up (or soon up): A look at the competing interests behind new housing.

  • Urban China’s empty homes

    China Evergrande Group has been in the news lately for being one of the most indebted property companies in the world. The company is now looking to raise some $5 billion by selling a stake in one of its business lines. That seems like a lot of money, but apparently it has upwards of $300 billion in liabilities. As I was reading about the company (in this WSJ article) I was surprised by some other stats about China’s housing market. According to some sources, nearly a third of the country’s GDP can now be tied back to real estate-related activities (see above chart). On top of this, about 21% of homes in urban China were thought to be vacant as of 2017. This equated to about 65 million empty homes. I don’t know what the exact numbers look like today, but these are staggering figures that speak to overbuilding.

    Chart: WSJ

  • Floor plan comments, and thoughts on inset bedrooms

    I came across the above floor plan over the weekend. I reshared it on Twitter and there was then a pretty good discussion about what people like and don’t like. I mean, who doesn’t like looking at floor plans?

    The suite is 790 square feet with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. It rents, at least according to Bobby’s original tweet, at $2,600 per month. That’s $3.29 per square foot. I’m guessing that the apartment is in Philadelphia solely based on Bobby’s location.

    The divisive thing in this floor plan is the two inset bedrooms. Some people don’t like these. But designing a good floor plan is like working through a puzzle. You have all these constraints (some of which are just personal preference) and you have to find ways to work around them.

    When you’re working with a deep urban floor plate, you pretty much have no choice but to design floor plans with inset bedrooms. Otherwise, the suites get too big and they stop making economic sense. I have talked about this a few times before on the blog.

    So what you do is “bury” the bedroom(s) and keep the main living space as open as possible. In this case, the living/dining dimensions are about 17′ wide x 10′ deep. So a pretty good size, and certainly a very good width.

    An alternate solution might be to flip one of the bedrooms up towards the main glass (keeping the second one inset). But given that you only have 17 feet to work with here, something is going to have to give. So if you made the living room 9′ wide, you’d then only have somewhere around 8′ for your bedroom.

    Personally, I don’t mind inset bedrooms, especially if they allow for more generous living spaces. So I think that this is a fairly reasonable and functional suite layout. I would have absolutely lived in an apartment like this when I was going to school in Philadelphia. (Is this even the right location?)

    But if I were to make a few tweaks:

    I would compress the bedrooms slightly to enlarge the living space even more. (Though if the target market is student roommates, perhaps the idea is to allow for a desk in the bedroom.) I would then flip the closets to the partition wall between the two bedrooms to improve sound attenuation.

    I would also try and get the kitchen out of the hallway and into the main living/dining area. I don’t know where all the plumbing stacks sit (see, constraints), but perhaps it just slides up toward the glass. Another solution might be on the other side of the upper bedroom (where there is currently a closet).

    But what are your thoughts? Would you rent this apartment? Comments welcome below.

  • Immaculate construction

    Emily Badger’s recent piece on “how ‘developer’ became such a dirty word” has been getting passed around within the industry over the last few days. I had a chuckle when I read this bit:

    The notion that development is inherently bad, or that developers are inherently bad actors, seems to ignore that the communities residents want to protect from developers were once developed, too, and often by people who made money at it. (That is, unless you believe in “immaculate construction.”)

    The article hits on a number of points that are absolutely true. There’s generally a lack of understanding around the economics behind new housing. And the cost structures, today, are dramatically different compared to the suburban-industrial complex.

    To provide one example, our cost consultant, Finnegan Marshall, recently shared with me a chart (dated April 2019) that broke down the various government fees that typically make up every new condo suite in Toronto.

    What it showed is that between 20-24% of the price of a new condo is generally compromised of government fees and taxes that span all three levels of government. This includes everything from development charges (impact fees) to parkland dedication.

    Similarly, the article quotes one developer from Montgomery County who estimates that the impact fees alone for his projects are usually upwards of $60,000 per housing unit. (This is pretty cheap compared to Toronto.)

    I raise this as an example because development charges/impact fees have become an important source of revenue for cities across both Canada and the US. They often offset lower property taxes. (Whether this is appropriate is an entirely other debate.)

    And so I find it paradoxical that many homeowners would like to simultaneously see lower property taxes, no new development, and more public services and infrastructure.

    Photo by EJ Yao on Unsplash

  • The new American condo

    Every year since 1984, the National Association of Home Builders (in the United States) has commissioned a home with the goal of showcasing new trends and technologies in the industry. At the same time, it also serves as a kind of dream home. This is what one should aspire to achieve. The initiative is called the New American Home (TNAH).

    The first home was built in Houston by Village Builders. The architect was Booth/Hansen & Associates and the home was about 1,500 square feet. It cost $80,000. Last year the home was in Montverde, Florida and was about 10,690 square feet (6,676 square feet of air-conditioned space). Not surprisingly, these homes have grown over the decades.

    According to a recent New York Times opinion piece by Allison Arieff — called, The New ‘Dream Home’ Should be a Condo — the square footage of this New American Home has been steadily rising:

    This is, of course, reflective of what has been happening in the market as a whole. According to Arieff, the average size of a new U.S. home today is about 1,000 square feet larger than it was in 1973. The average space per human has increased from 507 to about 971 square feet. As our wealth has grown we have naturally become more consumptive.

    But as Arieff asks in her article:

    What if the next New American Home was a condo? And what if there was a new American dream, not of auto-dependent suburbia, but walkable urbanism?

    She then contrasts last year’s 10,000 square foot “Tuscan style” New American Home against this 6 unit urban infill condo project in Los Angeles, where the average home is about 1,800 square feet and the building in its entirety is around 11,000 square feet.

    Which one would you prefer?

    Charts: New York Times