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.
If you’ve bought land with the intention of developing it and you now think the value of that land has either gone up or down, there comes the question of what number you should plug into your development pro forma. Do you input what you paid for the land or do you input the current market value of the land? The former is probably more common than the latter, but in my view it’s important to consider both scenarios.
If the value of the land has gone up, it means that you think you could turn around and sell it for that price today. And that would mean you would be making a profit without doing anymore work and without taking on any additional risk. That’s an option that exists right here and right now (t = 0). What you want to get at in your pro forma, or at least understand, is the incremental profit margin from taking on the risk and brain damage of actually doing and completing the development project.
To do that, you need to consider the current market value of the land. That way you isolate your land margin from your build-out margin. The one problem with this approach is that the numbers may then tell you not to develop. In a hot market (which is not right now), it is not uncommon for land to get bid up beyond current fundamentals. There’s always someone else who is willing to be more aggressive.
In this case, you may find that most of the development margin is in the land. And you will start thinking to yourself, “How can anyone afford to pay this much? It doesn’t make sense.” This doesn’t necessarily mean that you shouldn’t develop. But at least it gives you a better understanding of the risk and reward trade-off that you’re about to take on. It might also tell you some things about the market.
Yesterday I made a comment on Twitter about most people not understanding to what extent government bureaucracy inhibits the delivery of new housing in this city. It received a number of responses, including remarks about how development charges have also recently doubled and how this statement applies to pretty much every city out there. But there was also a comment about developers not being transparent and not properly explaining the impact to the public. In other words: please demystify the development pro forma. I thought that was a fair remark, and so this post is going to be a response to that comment.
Before I begin, it’s important to keep in mind that most developers have investors. These investors put up most of the money required for a project and in turn they take most of the profits. However, there is typically a “promote” in place, which is just an incentive structure that pays the developer more of the profits (disproportionate to the cash they invested in the project) if they perform and hit certain return benchmarks. All of this is to say that developers aren’t usually the ones holding all of the cash (which is what a lot of the public seems to think) and they are accountable to their investors to do what they said they would do.
Now let’s run through the costs that make up a “typical” development pro forma. For this example, I am going to assume that we’re talking about a 100,000 square foot mid-rise building; the kind that you might build and find along any one of Toronto’s Avenues. If we were doing this in real life, we would get more precise with the areas and consider gross construction area, gross floor area (city definition), and the net saleable/rentable areas. But to keep the math simple, we will ignore these differences. That’s the approach I’m going to take overall in the post. What you need to know, though, is that you have to pay to build the entire building, but you only get to collect revenue on a portion of it. That’s why the “efficiency” of a building matters.
Land
The value of development land is a function of what you can build and the revenue you can ultimately collect. So location matters a great deal. Based on the latest high-density land report from Bullpen and Batory, the average price of an unzoned mid-rise site in the City of Toronto is about $231 psf. So let’s assume a land cost for our project of $23.1 million. Assuming we can get land financing at 60% of the value of the land (loan-to-value), that would mean we’re putting up $9.24 million of cash (plus a loan guarantee!) and borrowing $13.86 million to start our project. At 5.25% per annum (interest-only loan), our annual interest charges would be about $727,650. From now on forward, we’re going to pay ~$60k in additional interest charges for every month that our project is delayed. Buckle up.
You should now begin to see why time is so valuable and why government bureaucracy can be so frustrating. As a developer, you’re heavily incentivized to move things forward, whereas it can often feel like everyone around you is trying to deliberately erect roadblocks in order to slow you down and make your project more expensive to build. Oftentimes, it is because it is less risky for them to punt things down the road and not make a decision. That is not the case for us and our project.
Hard Costs
Onto construction (or hard) costs. As many of you know, these have risen dramatically over the last 4 to 5 years. On some of our projects, we have added over $100 psf in hard costs alone. Part of this has to do with a busy construction market and part of this has to do with new building requirements: watertight undergrounds, new Green Standards, and so on. For our project, which is on the small side, let’s assume $360 psf for a total of $36 million. This would include our direct construction costs and our construction manager’s overhead (general conditions). We should also prepare for some of the trades to decline to bid on our project because it is too small and not worth their time.
Soft Costs
Soft costs include everything from consultant costs and interest charges to government levies and management fees. Like everything in your pro forma, these absolutely need to be broken out line by line. Don’t be lazy here. But for the purposes of this simplistic example, we’re going to use 75% of hard costs, which works out to be $27 million (or $270 psf). When I first started out in the development business, the rule of thumb was closer to 25% of hard costs. But times have changed. Government fees, alone, can make up about 1/4 of the price of a new condo in Toronto.
Adding up all of these costs, we’re at $861 psf or $86.1 million in costs. It’s now time to consider the revenue side. $1,000 psf seems like a nice round number, so let’s start there and assume we’re going to sell our condos for that. Typically in Toronto, the price you pay is inclusive of HST, so that liability will need to be deducted from our revenue line. It’s not a straight 13% because of the new home rebate, but the rebate also hasn’t been properly indexed since it was introduced and so the liability could still be upwards of 10%. (This is worthy of a separate blog post.) The result is $900 psf in revenue and a margin on costs that is less than 5%. No sensible developer would want to do this project. One misstep (or development charge increase) and you’re dead.
So let’s increase our condo prices to $1,100 psf. Maybe that will work. In doing that, we get to a margin on costs that is nearly 15%. Okay, now we’re in the range. But let’s say we just got delayed by 6 months (boom, interest charges) and our hard costs turned out to be off by $15. They’re actually working out to be $375 psf because of some new tariff and because the formworkers in the city are all tied up on bigger projects and couldn’t give a shit about our cute little infill project. Now we’re offside again in terms of our margin on costs. No problem, let’s try and push condo prices a bit more. Is $1,150 achievable? Perhaps. But ideally, given the above, we would want to be at $1,200 psf just to be safe.
This is an overly simplistic example of the math that goes into a development pro forma. But hopefully it begins to show you (1) just how many moving parts there are in a development project and (2) the kind of pricing that is required in today’s cost environment. Developers are reacting to the costs that they are being thrown and it is creating upward pressure on home prices. (See related post: Cost-plus pricing.) So far there has been enough elasticity in the market to absorb these price increases, but that may not always be the case. If you have questions about this post or disagree with any of my assumptions, feel free to leave a searing comment below.
A few weeks ago, I tweeted that I was creating a simple email newsletter that would notify you of new planning/development applications (and updates) near where you live (in Toronto). About 100 people subscribed following that tweet and we then spent the following few weeks getting the service ready.
The first email was sent out today and, if you haven’t already, you can subscribe for free, here. The way it works is pretty simple. You enter your postal code. We draw a 1000m radius around that postal code (we’ll monitor this number going forward to see if it continues to make sense). And we then send you any new applications/updates that fall within that radius.
So depending on where you live, the first email you receive could contain a long list of projects. They’re all assumed to be new initially. But going forward, the list will become much shorter and you’ll only receive an email if/when there’s something new to report.
The ultimate goal is to come up with a better way to engage people around new development projects. This is a first step. Regardless, our guts tell us that many people would appreciate a quick way to see what is happening around them. If you have any initial thoughts, please leave a comment below or send me an email.
You can email subscribe for free by visiting unlyst.com.
There’s a narrative out there that all developers are uncreative and greedy, and if only they would start being more creative and generous, we could solve the housing affordability problem that is plaguing many (if not all) global cities. In other words, the solution to increasing the supply of low and middle incoming housing is simply a psychological reframing on the part of developers.
The problem with this mental model is that it ignores reality. Development happens on the margin. The market is competitive. It’s difficult to find developable sites. And it’s a challenge to make projects work. More often than not, you have to say no as a developer. No I can’t buy this land. No I can’t build housing here. And no the market will not support new office space here. Sorry, but no. (See cost-plus pricing.)
Development needs to give back. On the blog we usually call this city building. And that’s because it implies a greater sense of civic responsibility. Developers aren’t just building one-off buildings, they’re building a city. I believe wholeheartedly in this. But the belief that projects can be saddled with an endless array of government fees and civic contributions is a problematic one. There are limits — because markets have limits.
We are looking to hire a Project Coordinator to join the Development team here at Slate Asset Management in our Toronto office.
This is an ideal position for someone who is passionate about development and cities; who wants to be part of an entrepreneurial and growing team; and who is able to be hands on and take ownership over what they do.
The Project Coordinator would work closely with the full Development team and support all aspects of project delivery from acquisition to exit/stabilization. Eventually, we want this person to lead a portfolio of their own development projects.
We’re looking for someone with the following skills and characteristics:
Demonstrated passion for city building, design, and urban affairs
Experience in real estate and/or development
Understanding of planning & land use policies, development finance, and design & construction (though, the right attitude and work ethic goes a long way)
High energy, with the ability to thrive in a fast-paced entrepreneurial environment while at the same time being extremely detail oriented
Strong communication skills, both written and verbal (well-reasoned opinions are crucial)
Proficiency in Excel, SketchUp, CAD/Revit and other relevant software considered an asset
Degree(s) in related field(s)
If you’re interested after reading all of this, please send your resume and cover letter to brandon@slateam.com. Your short cover letter should include why you want to work at Slate, as well as your favorite recent development project (it can be anywhere in the world but make sure to include why).
Alongside this, we would like to see a link/URL that helps us get to know you better. This could be your Twitter or Instagram, a personal blog, a portfolio, or something else that represents who you are. If you don’t have any of these, well then you’ll have to get creative.
Developing a building can often feel like you’re trying to solve a rubik’s cube. Among other things, you have to manage a myriad of different stakeholders, all of which — naturally — operate in their own self-interest. There’s the city, community, politicians, various agencies, consultants, tenants, purchasers, lenders, investors, the market at large (of which you really have no control of), and many others. Oftentimes you even have stakeholders whose interests are mutually exclusive. Indeed, the things that they want can sometimes be at odds with each other. Your job is to figure out a solution that satisfies as many of these interests as possible.
To give you an example, let’s say that you’ve been asked to introduce a stepback into your building in order to break up the elevation. From an urban design standpoint, this may make perfect sense. Hello, datum line. But now your construction costs just went up. You have to transfer your mechanical lines, insulate the roof, introduce new bulkheads, and, for the purposes of this example, let’s say you now need to introduce a structural transfer. This is big cost item that you hadn’t accounted for. And because you just reduced the height of the building to satisfy another stakeholder, you don’t have the excess clear height to accommodate the additional depth required by this new structural element. There is, of course, always a solution. But usually something will need to give.
At the same time, this raises some interesting philosophical questions. What’s more important in this example? The urban design move or keeping construction costs low so that the building can be delivered more affordably? The cynics will argue that this is a moot point because developers will always profit maximize. But I would encourage you to check out some of my past posts, such as “Cost-plus pricing” and “The impact of inclusionary zoning on development feasibility.” This problem solving dynamic is one of the things that makes development so challenging. But it is also one of the things that makes it incredibly rewarding.
I was in a meeting the other day and we started talking about a wayfinding sign that indicated it was a 10 minute walk to the nearest subway station. We wondered who had made this sign and ultimately decided that the number should be 10. Either they had no idea where the subway was or they were being ultra conservative in their estimate. The subway was — at most — 5 minutes away.
We then joked that if a developer had made the sign it would say 2 minutes, which I thought was telling. Some people like to describe real estate development as an exercise in risk mitigation. And that is certainly something that needs to be managed. But it’s also an exercise in resiliency, as you get every possible obstacle thrown in front of you. It’s as if the goal is not to build anything.
So while it’s important to manage the possible risks, I believe you have to be a bit of a glass-half-full kind of person in order to continue the march forward. Otherwise you’d probably give up. My first boss out of grad school used to describe it as reaching into the mouth of a tiger when everyone else figured it was over. I saw her do that time and time again and it made her great at what she did.
Today was the 2019 Land & Development Conference here in Toronto. I was on a panel in the morning about Proptech. I then sat in on a discussion about construction costs. But after that I had to get back to the office to prepare for a couple of meetings.
Here are my tweet takeaways (from the back of the room) during the construction cost session. You may need to click through to see the full thread.
18 month lag on construction costs when there’s a change in demand. What we are seeing today is a result of sales in 2017. -Niall Finnegan #land19pic.twitter.com/Q5M2Skq26I
The construction cost escalations that we have seen over the last 2-3 years have had a significant impact on new construction in this region. Niall Finnegan’s view is that we are 85% of the way through this “storm.”
From his experience, it takes 18 months or so for hard costs to respond to changes in demand. And so the storm we are currently in is a result of elevated condo sales from 2017-2018.
The general consensus from the panel was that costs should start to moderate sometime soon, though maybe not this year. Nobody really knows when that will happen. But if/when hard costs do adjust, it typically happens quickly.
One comment that didn’t make it into my tweets, but that I found interesting, was about how uncertainty and volatility in the market — like what we are seeing today with construction costs — could actually stifle innovation.
Because it creates additional project risks, it limits people’s appetite for other kinds of risks — like trying new things. I can see that.
Real estate development has historically been, and unfortunately still is, a male dominated business. (The story of Florence Casler is, however, a great outlier.) If you want some empirical evidence for this, pay attention to the length of the line for the men’s bathroom the next time you’re at a real estate conference or event.
This needs to change. Which is why my good friend Taya Cook (of Urban Capital) has just announced, in partnership with Sherry Larjani (of Spotlight Development), the first all-female development project in Canada. It’s called Reina and it’s planned for a vacant site at 689 The Queensway, Toronto. Here is an excerpt from a recent RENX article:
“We’re embarking on this project to create more visibility for women in real estate development, and to inspire younger women to see career possibilities,” said Cook, the director of development at Urban Capital, in a release announcing the project. “It’s a huge industry and a massive economic driver for the region. For some reason it has been seriously lagging behind in gender equity.”
Two things are probably important to mention about the team and project.
Firstly, the women developing Reina are all leaders and key decision makers. This is important for the project’s broader mission, but also because it will likely remove male biases from the design process. Everything from architecture to construction will be led by women and will incorporate a “female perspective.” Secondly — and this just makes the narrative even better — the site used to house a strip club.
Congratulations Taya, Sherry, and the rest of the project team on a terrific development and initiative: “Condominiums designed by women. Developed by women. Built for everyone.” Follow Reina on Instagram, here.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (US) created something known as Opportunity Zones. These are low-income and high-poverty census tracts that are designed to attract investment by offering a number of different tax benefits. I first wrote about it on the blog, here.
Now that some time has passed since the final Opportunity Zones were announced, Zillow Economic Research decided to look at the possible impact of this designation on real estate values. In other words: To what extent, if at all, are the tax benefits getting capitalized into the value of the properties?
Below is a chart showing the year-over-year change in the 12-month moving average sale price for low-income census tracts that were (1) eligible and selected as an Opportunity Zone; (2) eligible and not selected; and (3) not eligible.
My understanding is that the “not eligible” category represents census tracts with similar characteristics to the other two categories but, for whatever reason, were not eligible to become an Opportunity Zone. There are criteria.
The program is still quite new, but what Zillow found was that the eligible census tracts (green and yellow lines) seemed to exhibit similar sale price increases after the Act was signed, but before the final Opportunity Zones were announced. Once the final Zones were announced, sale prices in the selected category (green line) began to surge and move away from the pack.
This may be evidence that the tax benefits are starting to get capitalized, or it may not be. One question I have is about why pricing in the selected Opportunity Zones seems to be a lot more volatile — even before the Act was announced.
