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: planning

  • 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.

  • Geography of activity centers

    We need more “activity centers”. That is my takeaway from this report by Brookings.

    Activity centers are exactly what they sound like. But to be more specific, the definition used in the report is based on five categories of assets: community, tourism, consumption, institutional, and economic. And what the authors did was look at the relative concentration of each across the 110 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the US with at least 500,000 residents.

    They then came up with 3 different kinds of activity centers. Monocenters (blue in the above map), secondary centers (yellow), and primary centers (orange). Monocenters have, as you’d probably expect, a lot of one kind of asset. Secondary centers, on the other hand, have “some of at least two kinds of assets.” And primary centers have “a lot of at least two kinds of assets.”

    Looking at the above map, it is pretty clear — and not at all surprising — that Manhattan is, for the most part, one giant activity center. There is a lot going on. But this is not the typical condition. In the 110 metro areas looked at in the study, activity centers only occupy about 3% of land on average. The remaining 97% of land is, based on the above definition, a non-activity center.

    Why this matters is that activity centers punch above their weight. Despite representing a small land area, activity centers are home to 40% of all private sector jobs in the US. Supposedly, they also increase productivity (by an additional ~$1,723 per worker), yield higher property values (+26%), increase inclusivity, and reduce vehicle miles travelled.

    So yeah, more activity centers sounds like a good thing for our cities. Though as we have learned in recent years, we need to be careful with monocenters.

    Map: Brookings

  • Housing supply in low-cost and high-cost municipalities

    Here is a housing study that looked at housing supply — in the US from 2000 to 2020 — relative to median housing values. And here is the key takeaway:

    What this chart is saying is that new housing is rarely added in cities with the lowest-value homes. The bar on the left represents municipalities whose median housing values are less than 50% of the metropolitan average. And this makes sense. If values are low there is likely little to no incentive to build. The math just doesn’t work.

    However, as home values increase, the incentive to build and the ability to finance new projects also increases, and that is what we see in the above chart. This also makes sense.

    But something interesting happens in the highest-value cities — housing supply once again starts to fall off. And it turns out that there is a bit of a sweet spot. Municipalities whose relative housing values are 110 to 130% of the metropolitan average actually produce the most overall housing. Any higher than that and things start to decline.

    Why is that? The answer likely has to do with restrictive land-use regulations. The highest-value cities (and wealthiest suburbs) often have a lot of large single-family lots, as well as policies to ensure that this kind of built form doesn’t change. This has the effect of both limiting supply and enshrining values.

    So when it comes to housing supply, what you don’t want are low-cost areas. But you also don’t want the highest-value areas. What you want are areas that are doing well, but no so well that they start really restricting new entrants. This is what our industry often refers to as exclusionary zoning.

    Now, one of the most common ways to respond to this problem is to develop an opposing policy, namely inclusionary zoning. But usually what this policy doesn’t do is direct more supply to these high-value and low-density areas. Instead what it typically does is force the segment that is producing the most housing — let’s call it the 110 to 130% band — to deliver more affordable housing.

    It’s a neat trick that sounds pretty cool, but it is not at no cost.

  • Use-it-or-lose-it entitlements

    One of the things that cities often try and stamp out is speculation. Homes should not sit empty (enter vacant home tax). Storefronts should not sit empty (enter vacant commercial tax). And development land should not sit undeveloped. To correct this latter problem, one idea that is sometimes floated around is “use-it-or-lose-it” zoning.

    The way it works today in, I believe, most cities, is that if you do a site-specific rezoning on a property — and secure additional density — you get those special permissions forever. If you want to wait 100 years before starting construction, you are technically entitled to do that. Of course, in the interim, no new housing is actually being created. It’s all just on paper.

    The idea with “use-it-or-lose-it” entitlements is that — instead of these permissions lasting forever — they would expire after a certain period of time, which would mean that the entire rezoning process would need to be done all over again. These take time (at least a few years) and cost money (it’s in the millions). And so it has been suggested that this would incentivize developers to not sit on entitled land.

    While I do understand where this line of thinking is coming from, let me make a few points:

    • Generally speaking, most developers don’t just sit on entitled land for fun. They need things to happen, and to happen quickly, so that value can be realized. If there is a problem of too many developers not actually building, it could be a sign that there are other market factors impacting feasibility.
    • There is nothing wrong with rezoning a property and then “flipping it out” to another developer. This is often viewed negatively. But some developers only rezone properties and some developers only buy zoned sites. These can be different phases of the value chain. A rezoning can take years and millions of dollars, and so sometimes developers don’t have the wherewithal or desire to do both.
    • A use-it-or-lose-it approach unfairly punishes developers during market cycles and bear markets, like the one we are experiencing right now. There is no way to predict when the next global pandemic will hit, when construction costs might surge 40%, and when the fed could start rapidly increasing rates to calm inflation. Maybe waiting out the storm is all you can do.
    • If you’re building condominium housing in our market, you generally need pre-sales in order to secure a construction loan. Let’s call it 70% pre-sold. What happens if this takes longer than expected? And what happens if you sell 50%, your site-specific rezoning expires, and then you have to restart the entire process? At this point and in this current market environment, you would likely have to cancel the entire project and reboot it.
    • Timing is important. To give a specific project example, we had planned to launch condominium pre-sales for our One Delisle project in the fall of 2020. And we were ready to do that. But sentiment didn’t feel right. Too pandemic-y still, and so we waited until the spring of 2021. This turned out to be the right decision. But what would have happened had we had this timing gun to our head? (Truthfully, it always feels like there’s a timing gun to our head.)
    • I have written about this before, but go-to-market strategies are changing in this current environment. It is taking longer to start sales and construction because, among other things, developers are spending more time trying to pin down their construction costs. Would rezoning expiries take all of this into consideration and adjust accordingly?
    • Finally, if one is going to do something like force developers to pull all of their building permits within X months of receiving zoning approvals — or else suffer the consequences — then everything required to get there should also have a maximum timeline associated with it. In other words, cities would also need to do things like commit to issuing permits within Y months of receiving a submission — or else. It’s only fair that this cuts both ways. But just to be very, very clear, I do not think this is a good idea.

    What I am broadly saying is that (1) development is a pain in the ass and (2) developers are already heavily incentivized to move quickly and make things happen. It is not uncommon for projects to take 5-10 years from site acquisition to completion. And a lot of unexpected things can happen during that time period. Hopefully losing your entitlements doesn’t become one of them.

  • The even narrower streets of Noto, Sicily

    So it turns out that the narrow streets in Le Panier (in Marseille) are actually far too wide at nearly 13 feet. What were the planners even thinking back in 600? Here’s a street I found in Noto, Sicily at just over 4 feet. I’m not sure if this is considered some sort of tertiary lane or not, but it had a street sign, addresses, and businesses in a courtyard at the end of it. So I’m going to assume it’s a bona fide street. It’s hard to imagine getting much tighter than this. I wonder if Jeff Bezos delivers here.

  • Consistency over intensity — rethinking Toronto’s low-rise neighborhoods

    Toronto’s chief planner, Gregg Lintern, published this piece in the Toronto Star over the weekend where he argued that “expanding housing options in [Toronto’s] neighbourhoods is the missing piece of the growth puzzle.”

    What he is saying is that if we’re going to have any chance at reasonably accommodating the 700,000 or so people who are expected to move to this city over the next three decades, we’re going to have to evolve our low-rise neighborhoods. That includes more retail, more amenities, more density, and yes, built form that houses multiple units.

    I immediately thought that this was meaningful progress in the right direction. It is acknowledgement that things need to change and that our low-rise communities need to change.

    But others felt that this was a case of soft-serve ice cream, arguing that there’s “danger in praising incremental, belated change when dramatic change is what’s needed.” I also see this point.

    To quote the late architect Daniel Burnham, “make no little plans.” But this is arguably a little easier to subscribe to when you’re rebuilding after a great fire has decimated your entire city (he was instrumental in the rebuild of Chicago following its fire of 1871).

    The unfortunate reality today, at least in this environment, is that bold vision isn’t often rewarded politically. The status quo bias is simply so great. Change is painfully slow. That’s why we rely so heavily on pilot projects when it comes to city building.

    So while I too am a fan of bold vision, I also see value in what Simon Sinek and others refer to as consistency over intensity. Small, repetitive, and compounding actions can have powerful long-term results. You just have to keep going in the right direction.

    And I think that many of us, or perhaps most, will agree that the right direction is rethinking our low-rise neighborhoods.

    Photo by Tungsten Rising on Unsplash

  • Why housing is so expensive

    A friend of mine sent me the above podcast episode this morning (click here if you can’t see it embedded above). I’ve only listened to a bit of it, but I plan to finish it up over the long weekend. Here are the topics it covers:

    We discuss why the states with the highest homelessness rates are all governed by Democrats, the roots of America’s homelessness crisis, why economists believe the U.S. gross domestic product could be over a third — a third! — higher today if American cities had built more housing, why it’s so hard to build housing where it’s needed most, the actual (and often misunderstood) causes of gentrification, why public housing has such a bad reputation in the U.S.; how progressives’ commitment to local democracy and community voice surprisingly lies at the heart of America’s housing crises, why homeownership is still the primary vehicle of wealth accumulation in America (and the toxic impact that has on our politics), what the U.S. can learn from the housing policies of countries like Germany and France, what it would take to build a better politics of housing and much more.

  • The definitive but crazy guide to creating more affordable housing

    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
    • Reduce/eliminate complex urban design guidelines, such as Toronto’s widely used 45-degree angular plane guideline

    What is missing from this list? And/or what did I get wrong?

    Last updated: July 25, 2022

  • Displacement and gentrification

    Let’s consider a scenario where we have a relatively affordable 20-unit apartment building in a rapidly growing global city. This particular building happens to be of an older vintage and so let’s say that the in-place rents are about 40% below market.

    Next let’s assume that the zoning has just been updated for the land and it is now possible and economically feasible to build a total of 300 housing units in a new high-rise building. This would mean demolishing the existing 20 apartment units.

    But because this global city has rental replacement policies in place, these 20 units would need to be rebuilt within the new high-rise and offered to the current residents at exactly the same rents. So same price, but new housing.

    Compensation would also need to be provided to these residents to cover the cost of moving around. Because they would obviously need to move off site to allow for construction and then, if they’d like, move back once construction is complete.

    How would such a scenario make you feel?

    The typical objections usually involve, among other things, concerns around displacement, gentrification, and overall built form. There is a concern that investments of this magnitude might push people out of the area and also change the character of it.

    But at the end of the day, these 20 existing homes are not disappearing from the market. They will remain part of the housing stock, but now with the addition of 280 new market rate homes.

    I think it’s important to remember that in a rapidly growing city, trying to maintain the status quo by limiting new development can actually have the opposite effect. Because what you end up doing is creating a scenario where more and more people are fighting for a relatively fixed supply homes. And that is certainly one way to encourage displacement and gentrification.

  • 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.