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: ontario

  • Ontario should have more solar energy

    I have a very close friend (Peter Vogel) who is in the solar business. He runs business development for a company called Otter Energy. And by volume, I believe they are the largest in Ontario. Since 2009, they have installed over 350,000 panels.

    So when Peter and I hang out, I get the benefit of learning about solar. And he is great at reminding me that installing panels on the roof of buildings in Ontario makes a ton of sense from both an environmental and financial standpoint.

    Generally speaking, the amount of benefit you will see depends on the building’s ratio of roof area to overall building area. Low-rise buildings with a lot of roof area (think industrial assets), are absolute no brainers. But it can also work very well on many other asset classes, including mid-rise multi-family.

    Here are some high-level figures that he recently walked me through:

    • As a rule of thumb, solar in Ontario typically generates between 12-14 kWh’s per year per square foot of roof area (usable flat roof).
    • The average payback period for an install is usually somewhere between 4.5 to 7 years.
    • However, on income producing properties, the permanent decrease in operating expenses and the corresponding increase in net operating income (NOI) will increase your asset value on day one.
    • Consider spending $100k on solar panels to increase your NOI — through lower electricity costs — by $10k. If you were to then capitalize this increase in NOI by 5%, it would mean your asset value has right away increased by $200k. If the cap rate for this asset is even lower, say 4%, the increase goes up to $250k.
    • These multiples can get even better with larger installs. Here are some numbers from a real-world 100,000 sf commercial building in Ontario. In this case, the solar system cost about $800k (net) and resulted in annual operating cost savings of about $140k. This means, that at a 5% cap rate, the owner spent $800k to increase the value of their asset by $2.8 million on day one.
    • Of course, in addition to all of this, you get long-term energy cost certainty. That’s worth something too.

    The business case is compelling. So I think more building owners should be looking at solar. We are certainly looking at it from a development perspective. If you’re interested in learning more, feel free to reach out to my friend. There are a lot of details that help strengthen the case for solar, including depreciation allowances and tax credits.

  • Messy intersections

    I am not a transportation engineer, but sometimes I like to, you know, pretend. And lately, I’ve been thinking about how to better design the Toronto intersection of Dundas, Dupont, Annette, and Old Weston (which I touched on briefly over here). It’s a weird 5-point intersection that is often cited as one of the most confusing in the city. And so there’s a lot that could be done.

    Here’s what it looks like today:

    The centerpiece is the Dundas-Dupont Traffic Island, which is actually a city-owned park. It’s not the most generous green space, but the real problem with this park is that it’s very much an island. There’s really only one pedestrian access point — its north end. For the most part, you need to be unlawful in your movements on and off it.

    This is a fairly common occurrence in cities. The island is, almost certainly, a remnant space. It was never explicitly designed; it is just what was left over after they figured out how to connect all of these streets and negotiate the intersection’s grade changes.

    The other signal, that these are remnant spaces, is the paint markings on the street. Their main job is to tell cars where to go. But they’re also unproductive spaces. Nobody is intended to actually occupy them. So what they really say is, “we have too much road and we didn’t know what to do; so we just painted them.”

    If you watch the below video of Claire Weisz (founder of WXY Studio) explaining the work that she has done in New York City, you’ll see remarkable similarities to what I’m talking about here. This sort of thing happens all the time, especially at messy intersections where multiple streets converge. The objective was to connect the streets and the rest became a byproduct.

    But when properly designed, these spaces actually become better for everyone: drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. And this Toronto intersection strikes me as a perfect candidate. So if my local Councillor Gord Perks is reading this post, I would ask him to do what he can within the city to encourage this kind of positive change.

    And not just here, but wherever there is a street that sucks.

  • Rear-yard suites and secondary suites built in Toronto over the last decade

    Here is a mapping, from the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, showing the number of “closed” building permits issued in Toronto between 2013 and 2023 for both rear-yard suites (laneway houses and garden suites) and secondary suites (like basement apartments).

    A “closed” building permit probably means that construction is complete. However, it is not uncommon for a permit to inadvertently remain open. This happened to me with Mackay Laneway House. The permit was supposed to be closed, but it wasn’t.

    So here’s the same mapping with open (i.e. active) permits also turned on:

    Three things immediately stand out:

    1. Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.
    2. Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.
    3. North Toronto is wealthy and isn’t having either of these housing typologies.

    Looking at these mappings, it probably seems like a decent amount of new housing. But that’s not really the case:

    • From 2013 to 2023, Toronto issued 2,209 building permits for secondary suites (1,525 have been closed and 684 remain open as of December 31, 2023).
    • And from 2020 to 2023, Toronto issued 898 building permits for rear-yard suites (192 have been closed and 706 remain open, which does suggest some increased adoption). Rear-yard suites only became permissible in 2018, which is why the date range is shorter.

    To be fair, I would imagine that many secondary suites get built without a building permit. So I think the above number is probably underestimating actual supply. But even still, it doesn’t change the conclusion: A lot more needs to be done to increase the supply of new housing in Toronto.

  • Interest rates are expected to start coming down this summer

    Last week was “forum week” in Toronto. (That is, it was the Toronto Real Estate Forum.) And as is the case every year, Benjamin Tal, deputy chief economist of CIBC, opened up the event with his usual macro view of the world. For those of you who missed it (as I did), here are some of his key points (via RENX):

    • The Bank of Canada’s overnight rate will ultimately/likely settle into the 2.75-3% range (currently it sits at 5%). He expects rates to start coming down this summer.
    • Inflation is down, but we’re not yet at the 2% target. The “last mile” is always the toughest.
    • But as we know, the BofC will take a recession over high inflation, any day.
    • The mortgage market has fallen faster than in the early 90s recession. Tal said that the residential real estate market in Canada is right now facing “the biggest test” since then.
    • Canada is in what he calls a “per capita recession”. But for the million or so immigrants that the country accepted over the last year, we’d be in a full-blown official recession.
    • Finally, he called this correction in the housing market both “real” and “healthy”; he spoke about normalcy returning in 1-2 years; and he posited that the market will be “crazy” when it does return because of a supply deficit.

    This last point is an important one. New housing supply is mostly shut off right now. I say mostly because there are obviously still projects under construction, and there have been and there will continue to be some successful launches. But by and large, most developers are waiting right now, principally because the absorption isn’t there. They have no other choice.

    But Canada continues to grow. People from around the world continue to want to move here. And there continues to be a need for a lot more new housing. So when the market does return — and it, of course, will — there is going to be a supply-demand imbalance. And as is always the case in real estate, there will be a lag in responding to this imbalance.

    This is what Tal means by “crazy”.

    Photo by Wiktor Karkocha on Unsplash

  • Call to Hamilton artists

    Our team is looking to partner with local Hamilton, Ontario-based artists and creatives as part of a new project that we’re working on for next year. So this post is intended to be a call to artists. If you’re based in Hamilton and doing great work, we would love to hear from you. Please drop me an email (brandon@slateam.com).

    In my mind, art and culture is a fundamental ingredient in Hamilton’s ongoing renaissance. Each and every time I’m in the city, I feel like I meet someone who is an artist. And there are so many great examples that we can point to.

    Take Scott Martin (aka Burnt Toast). Scott is a Hamilton-based illustrator and co-creator of the fantastically popular Doodles NFT collection. I don’t have one in my wallet, but I can tell you that I want one. The current starting price for a Doodle is nearly US$9k. But as an alternative, you could also just go to downtown Hamilton and look at one of Scott’s public murals.

    Go Hamilton. Please show us what else you are creating.

    Photo by Abigail Chen on Unsplash

  • Two multi-family booms

    Here is an interesting chart, from Mike Moffat, that looks at housing completions — both ownership and rental — in the province of Ontario. The way to read this chart is that, for each date, you are looking at completions for the previous 10 years. (It says 12, but that seems to be a mistake.) For example, Q4-1964, which is the start of this chart, equals all homes built between Q1-1955 and Q4-1964.

    Three things will probably immediately stand out to you:

    1. We built a lot of multi-family housing in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, we built more than we’re building right now and that wasn’t just the case in Toronto and Ontario. In Canada as a whole, the majority of building permits (60%) issued between 1962 and 1973 were for multi-family buildings. More specifically though, this was a rental apartment boom, as opposed to a condominium boom.
    2. We then said: “Nah, let’s not build so many apartments anymore. Let’s go back to building more single-family houses.”
    3. And that’s what we did — by a fairly wide margin — until the early 2000s when the next great multi-family boom started to take hold. This time, though, it developed into a condominium boom.

    Both multi-family booms have mirrored periods of overall economic expansion. But you also need to look at what government was doing. In the 1960s and 1970s we made it attractive to build rental housing (whereas today it’s a very challenging asset class to underwrite). And then more recently, we decided that much of our growth should happen in existing built-up urban areas. That generally means more multi.

    But multi-family is a fairly broad term. Are we talking about 4-storey walk-ups or are we talking about 40-storey tall buildings? For those of you who are able to look through this chart to what’s happening in the market, you’ll know that we are far more effective at the latter. We have a lot of work to do when it comes to the in-between housing scales.

  • 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.

  • Florida proposes stricter condo rules

    In response to the tragic collapse of the 12-storey Champlain Towers South building in Surfside last year, the state of Florida is set to pass new stricter condominium rules around inspections and reserve funds. And according to the WSJ, the requirements would be some of the strictest in the US.

    Under the House bill that has already passed, condominium buildings that are three or more stories would need to be fully inspected and recertified once they are 30 years old. For buildings within 3 miles of a coast (salt water is impactful), the requirement would be 25 years old. Following this recertification, the buildings would then need to be inspected every 10 years. Under the proposed Senate bill, the inspection process would start after 20 years and be required every 7 years. In both cases, the reports that come out of these inspections would need to be submitted to all unit owners and to local building officials.

    If approved, these rules would have an immediate impact on the market given that about 900,000 of the approximately 1.5 million condominium units in Florida are older than 30 years old.

    But is all of this enough? I think the devil is in the details.

    Under the House bill, unit owners would no longer be able to waive the collection of certain building reserves. But under the Senate bill, the requirements for waiver would simply be tightened. How tight? In all honesty, I don’t know the specifics. I haven’t read the bills. But the collection of reserve funds is paramount. And after reading the above WSJ article, I can’t help but feel like these new policies might still be less stringent than what we already have here in Ontario.

    Here are two excerpts from Ontario’s Condominium Act:

    Put more simply, all buildings and structures need to have regular inspections. Materials and systems naturally depreciate over time and so the point of a reserve fund study is to determine (1) what will need to be repaired/replaced, (2) when it will need to be repaired/replaced, and (3) how much it might cost. You then need to ensure that the money is in place to carry out the execution of said study. In all cases, there should be zero compromises around life safety.

  • Sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable

    I just discovered a new alliance of non-partisan, non-profit resident and ratepayer groups in the Greater Toronto Area that have come together in opposition of what they see as “unregulated overdevelopment and the lack of sensible growth vision for the GTA.” If you’d like to read through their public letter to the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, you can do that over here.

    In it you will learn that the Toronto region is vying desperately for the title of the most densely populated place on earth by trying to compete with already established locales like the slums of Mumbai and Monk Kok in Hong Kong. One has to admire ambition.

    But what is not clear to me is what exactly “sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable developments” should look like. Should we quash our low-rise “Neighbourhood” designations (the majority of our land area) and instead blanket the region with mid-rise buildings similar to Paris? This is one option and, by the way, Paris is far denser than Toronto (relevant reading here and here).

    Or should we maintain our low-rise “Neighbourhoods” exactly as they are and simply reduce overall housing supply by limiting height and/or density at our transit stations? Is this the ask? I’m not sure. But this is a good question for city builders: What should sensible, balanced, affordable, and livable development look like? Is the 33-storey building that I live in sensible?

  • Ontario proposes target of 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years

    Yesterday I wrote about our housing doom loop.

    Today, the province of Ontario responded (maybe not to my post) by publishing this Housing Affordability Task Force report. In it, are 55 recommendations to improve overall housing supply across the province, with the end goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.

    I’m still making my way through the report, but the recommendations can basically be grouped into these five main buckets (taken verbatim from this press release):

    • Make changes to planning policies and zoning to allow for greater density and increase the variety of housing.
    • Reduce and streamline urban design rules to lower costs of development.
    • Depoliticize the approvals process to address NIMBYism and cut red tape to speed up housing.
    • Prevent abuse of the appeal process and address the backlog at the Ontario Land Tribunal by prioritizing cases that increase housing.
    • Align efforts between all levels of government to incentivize more housing.

    Reform is badly needed. And I have gone on and on and on and on over the years about a number of the problems associated with how we build new homes and how we expect them to suddenly become more affordable.

    Still, I think that most of the general public would be shocked to learn how long things take, how complicated we have decided to make land use approvals, and how a single person with a vested interested in seeing no development can hold up the delivery of thousands of new homes.

    Progress is measured in years and decades. Months simply evaporate while you wait for the next PDF document to grant you access to some other labyrinthian planning hurdle. It doesn’t need to be this way.