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.
One of the really positive things that is happening in the world of Toronto land use planning is that the minimum scale of development that is permitted as-of-right continues to grow. We’ve gone from fourplexes to 6-storey apartments, and now we’re talking about mid-rise buildings (6-11 storeys) and even some tall buildings (12 storeys or more).
What this ultimately means is being able to build without a rezoning application. That means no site specific negotiation, and no fighting over whether the building should be 32 meters tall or 30.5 meters tall with a 2.4 meter stepback because of shadowing concerns on someone’s heritage-designated garden gnome. It means getting under construction sooner.
Expand the number of streets designated as “Avenues” throughout Toronto (Avenues are a defined term and where we have decided that mid-rise buildings should go)
New Official Plan policies that would encourage more mid-rise buildings on Avenues
Eliminate the rear angular plane requirement (currently a mid-rise performance standard); this is expected to produce ~30% more homes in your typical mid-rise development
Increase as-of-right permitted heights to 6-11 storeys (the city estimates that this will unlock ~61,000 additional homes)
Introduce “transition zones” between Avenues and low-rise neighborhoods, which could then accommodate things like low-rise towns and apartments up to 4 storeys (it’s worth noting that transition zones were initially part of Toronto’s mid-rise performance standards but then got removed for some reason)
This is meaningful progress. Let’s enact and keep going.
Yesterday, the City of Toronto announced that it would be “unlocking” 7,000 new rental homes — including 1,400 deeply affordable homes — by doing two key things:
Waiving development charges on rentals
Providing a 15% reduction on property taxes
And by their estimates, the value of these benefits would be roughly $58k per new rental home:
Great news, right?
But wait, there’s a catch. If you read the details, you’ll see that in order for a project to be approved under this program, there is also a requirement to deliver at least 20% of the homes as affordable rentals.
So let’s look at what this could mean.
Here is a chart comparing a market rental suite at $3,000 per month to a more affordable one at $1,500 per month:
Market
Affordable
Variance
Face Rent
$3,000
$1,500
($1,500)
Suite Size
$600
600
0
PSF Rent
$5.00
$2.50
($3)
Annual PSF Rent
$60
$30
($30)
NOI Margin
70%
70%
$0
Annual Net Rent
$42
$21
($21)
Cap Rate
4.50%
4.50%
$0
PSF Value
$933
$467
($467)
Per Unit Impact
($280,000)
20% of Units
($56,000)
Both are assumed to be 600 square feet. In the case of the market suite, the per square foot (PSF) value is estimated at $933 psf, and the affordable suite is estimated at $467 psf. This represents a halving of the value (which makes sense because I halved the rents).
On a per unit basis (again, we’re assuming 600 sf), this is a loss in value of about $280k. But since only 20% of the units would need to be “affordable”, I multiplied this number by 0.2. The result is a per unit loss of approximately $56k.
What this means is that we’re basically doing a whole bunch of stuff to get right back to the same place. Like, hey, we’re not building enough rental housing and we’re certainly not building enough affordable housing — because the development margins are so dangerously thin — so here’s a credit of $58k per unit. But at the same time, here’s a bill for $56k per unit.
What’s the point, besides making it sound like we’re doing something to create more housing? This program will do absolutely nothing to spur the creation of new rental housing.
Elevate Miami, which I wrote about last month, just announced a number of new speakers and, more specifically, a number of new high-rise development projects that will be discussed at the conference. They are (not an exhaustive list):
Dolce & Gabbana Residences, Miami
Mercedes-Benz Places, Miami
Aman and One High Line Residences, New York
Indian Creek Residences & Yacht Club, Miami Beach
Edition Residences, Miami
AGE360, Curitiba, Brazil
What should be clear from this list is that Miami is like a different planet. It is one of the places where the richest people in the world go to spend their money, much of it on real estate. Because of this, you can think of this real estate as a luxury good, which is why so many of them are now branded.
In economic terms, a luxury good is typically defined as a good where demand increases — more than what is proportional — as incomes rise. For example, if a person’s income goes up by 1%, but their demand for a particular thing goes up by 5%, then this thing would be considered a “luxury good,” as opposed to a “normal good.”
The technical definition is an income elasticity of demand that is greater than 1. More simply, this just means that as someone starts making more money, they will start spending a greater percentage of their income on luxury goods. This is in contrast to “necessity goods,” where it doesn’t matter how much money you make, you only need so much toilet paper, for example.
What all of this suggests is that as people from all over the world get rich, they are likely to want more branded residences in a place like Miami. However, the flip side of this dynamic is that as incomes fall, the demand for luxury goods should, in theory, also fall more than what is proportional. It works both ways.
So I’ll be curious to hear — from the developers at Elevate — how things are going right now. We’re at a time in the real estate cycle where everyone is rethinking their strategies. Or maybe, Miami truly is a different planet.
As we have talked about many times before, the best answer to this question is that it’s worth whatever money is left in your pro forma once you’ve accounted for everything else. This is what is called the “residual claimant” in a development model. And it means you start with your revenue, you deduct all project costs, including whatever profit you and your investors need to make in order to take on the risk of the development, and then whatever is left can go to pay for the land.
This is the most prudent way to value development land; but of course, in practice, it doesn’t always work this way. In a bull market, the correct answer to my question might be, “whatever most market participants are willing to pay.” And sometimes/oftentimes, this number will be greater than what your model is telling you, meaning you’ll need to be more aggressive on your assumptions if you too want to participate. (Not development advice.)
Given that determining the value of land starts with revenue, one way to do a very crude gut check is to look at the relationship between land cost and revenue. This is sometimes called a land-to-revenue ratio. And historically, for new condominiums in Toronto, you wanted a ratio that was no greater than 10%. Meaning, if the most you could sell condominiums for was $1,000 psf, then the most you could afford to pay for land was $100 per buildable square foot.
However, this is, again, a very crude rule of thumb. I would say that it’s only really interesting to look at this after the fact. Because in reality, things never work this cleanly. For one thing, there is always a cost floor. Don’t, for example, think you can buy land in Toronto for $80 pbsf and sell condominiums for $800 psf, because this will not be enough to cover all of your costs. You will lose money.
Secondly, there are countless variables that have a huge impact on the value of development land. Things like a high required parking ratio, development charges and other city fees, inclusionary zoning, and so on. All of these items are real costs in a development model, and so they will need to be paid for somehow.
Typically this happens by way of higher revenues (in a rising market), a lower land cost (in a sinking market), or some combination of the two. But in all of these cases, it means your land-to-revenue ratio must come down to maintain project feasibility. This is why suburban development sites typically have a lower ratio — too much loss-leading parking, among other things.
Of course, there are also instances where the correct answer could be a land-to-revenue ratio approaching zero, or even a negative number. In this latter case, it means your projected revenues aren’t enough to cover all of your other costs, excluding land. For anyone to build, they will require some form of subsidy. And this is basically the case with every affordable housing project. They don’t pencil on their own. (For a concrete example of this, look to the US and their Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.)
So once again, the moral of this story is that the best way to think about the value of development land is to think of it as “whatever money is left in the pro forma once you’ve accounted for everything else.” Because sometimes there will be money there, and sometimes there won’t be.
A branded residence is, as the name suggests, a residential building with a known branded attached to it. Historically, these have tended to be hotel brands. But it really just needs to be any brand that people know, care about, and will pay a premium for. So it could also be a fashion brand, a car brand, or whatever else.
This is a growing segment of the residential market. According to UK-based Savills, there were only 15 or so of these “schemes” in the 1990s (the UK uses scheme in lieu of project, which always sounds conniving to me), but by the end of this decade they expect the pipeline of branded residences to exceed over 1,200.
I would also argue that projects designed by celebrated architects and/or designers are a form of branded residence. And this is not being captured in Savills’ number above.
Whatever your definition, today, the branded residence capital of the world seems to be Dubai, which feels right. And the biggest brands, by what appears to be a long shot, are Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton (hotel side), and YOO and Trump (non-hotel side). Here are the full rankings from Savills:
This is an interesting part of the real estate business for a few reasons. One, it makes sense. A New Balance shoe that gets co-branded with Aimé Leon Dore unlocks additional value for both sides. ALD has a brand that certain people care about. So, of course the same would be true of real estate paired with the right brand.
Two, it’s a growing market, and I think this is aided by the fact that development is an intensely local business — so it can be hard to grow a globally-significant brand on your own. Sometimes you just need to borrow someone else’s.
And three, it’s usually a less risky approach to getting your name on buildings. Branded residences typically operate on a licensing model, which means developers pay for the right to use the brand. The brand may also capture some of the upside in the form of a percentage of sales. That’s less risky than putting up your own money.
In this last one, he specifically talks about things like price gouging (starting with the grocery industry) and apartment rent controls. Each is worth a full read when you have the time, but here I’ll leave you all with a few city building-related thoughts.
Marks describes economics as the study of choice. And within these choices, there are many complicated moving pieces and second-order consequences. Take, for example, rent control in New York City. What rent control does is stop the free market from being able to freely set rents. The result:
A person in favor of this arrangement would argue that it maintains affordability and diversity. What it means in purely economic terms is that some people who couldn’t afford to live in New York City if rents were set by free-market forces are able to live there if they’re lucky enough to secure an apartment with regulated rent. But other people who would like to live in New York City and can afford higher rents can’t do so because there are no apartments for them. And lastly, landlords that have apartments that are somehow unregulated can command higher rents than would be the case if additions to the supply of apartments weren’t being discouraged. It’s a matter of personal philosophy whether this is good or bad. But clearly, the laws of economics and the actions of free markets aren’t at work in New York City. Someone in government is making the decisions.
Much like inclusionary zoning in the case of new housing, the tradeoffs with regulated rents are that you get (1) less overall housing supply and (2) more expensive prices for the people that can pay market rents.
You could argue, as Marks suggests, that these are acceptable outcomes; but regardless of your opinion, there are real consequences to this policy decision. There’s no such thing as a “free lunch” in economics, and consequently there’s no such thing as no-cost affordable housing. The question is: Who pays?
Going back to the topic of traffic congestion from yesterday’s post, Toronto’s general reluctance to implement any form of road or congestion pricing is also an economic choice. We have priced our roads so cheaply that demand is always going to outstrip supply. And this is expected. What we are experiencing today is a natural market outcome.
Targeting bike lanes as part of the problem is meant to counter this by increasing road supply. Less bike lanes means more space for cars, right? But the second-order consequence of this choice is that you push people off their bikes (which take up less road space) and into cars (which take up more road space). So demand is also likely to increase.
The stark reality of solving traffic congestion is that it will require greater change. It will mean fewer people driving, more people taking transit and biking, and the people who do continue to drive will have to pay more for it.
Of course, this is not what any politician wants to talk about. As Marks says: “In the world of politics, there can be limitless benefits and something for everyone. But in economics, there are only tradeoffs.” The tradeoff we have decided to make is cheap roads in exchange for crippling traffic congestion.
I’ve told versions of this story before, but I was reminded of it again today.
When I was in grad school studying both architecture and real estate, I used to walk back and forth across campus and jump between two very different kinds of academic experiences. On the one side of campus, it was taboo to talk about money. And on the other end, the only important thing to talk about was money. (I am exaggerating in both cases, but I think only slightly.)
Given that I was studying and genuinely interested in both, this always felt like a weird false dichotomy. I mean, why not care about, you know, multiple things? But that’s generally not the way it was. Talking about money tainted the purity of design. And talking about things like design and beauty felt out of place and less serious in a room where cap rates were being debated and serious financial models were being honed.
This is not to say that nobody was thinking across disciplines. I was in a joint program, after all. I can also remember attending a lunch & learn where a student asked a seasoned real estate executive what he should study in addition to finance. The response he got was something along the lines of, “the furthest thing from finance. Study something that will give you a different perspective on real estate.”
I remember this really resonating with me — probably because I was searching for breadcrumbs to make me feel like less of an outsider at Wharton. Still, this came across as a unique perspective at the time.
Knowing how money stuff works is absolutely fundamental. (We need to teach more of it in schools to young people.) And as a developer, it all starts with managing risk, executing (i.e. doing what we said we would do), and being an honest steward of other people’s money. Don’t do this, and you likely won’t be a developer for very long.
But then, what else? What unique insights can we bring to the assumptions that feed a finely honed model? Fast forward to today and this is now the basis for how the Globizen team aims to look at real estate opportunities. We want to cover all ends of campus. And that means we are more than okay talking about unserious things like design and beauty.
The GTA condo market is in a state of economic lockdown. The math doesn’t make economic sense from both the demand side (investors) and the supply side (developers), leaving the market at a standstill.
The above excerpt is from a recent CIBC Capital Markets article by Benjamin Tal (CIBC) and Shawn Hildebrant (Urbanation). And what it ultimately means is that the supply of new condominiums in the GTA is falling and will continue to fall for the foreseeable future. Below are two charts, from the same article, that show that.
Because of this, I actually think that, if you need or want a place to live, right now is a near ideal time to buy a condominium, especially if it’s from developer inventory (in an already completed project) or it’s a resale. Of course, most people won’t want to do this because they’d rather buy when most other people in the market want to buy. This is how markets tend to go.
It has been a while since the GTA has gone through one of these real estate cycles, but it is typical: developers are prone to both over-building and under-building. It simply takes too long to build a building, and so it is natural for there to be moments when supply and demand don’t exactly line up.
Pre-selling condominiums is — in theory only — supposed to protect against too much overbuilding. But as we have spoken about many times before, it can be challenging for end users to buy a new home so far in advance. And so the new condominium market has come to rely on investors who want to buy early and then either sell later or rent later.
According to the above article (and MLS data), the share of newly completed condominiums used as rentals reached a peak of 34% in 2023. So a third of new condos. My gut tells me that the actual number is much higher. Many rentals never reach MLS. Overall, I think it’s very safe to assume that the majority of new condominiums are owned by investors.
But right now, fewer investors want to own condominiums, which is why the number of resale listings has spiked this year:
This is, again, why I think right now is an excellent time to buy a condo. You know, be greedy when others… Regardless, this inventory will need to get absorbed and that will ultimately happen. Some of it will go to end users and some of it will go to investors who can make sense of the rental math and/or want to take a long view on Toronto. But if more goes to the former, we will be losing a lot of new rental housing.
At the same time, while all of this is going on, construction starts are likely going to remain depressed (chart 3 above). It’s impossible to know how long this lasts, but at some point we will reach a moment in the cycle where we are under-building new housing. Maybe we’re already there. Development simply can’t turn on fast enough when demand spikes. There will almost always be a lag.
So, since the majority of new condominiums have been serving as new rental housing, there’s a strong case to be made that at some point we will run into a potentially severe shortage of rentals. Condo investors are sometimes vilified in the media, but we will soon find out what happens when you take a big chunk of them out of the housing market.
Urbanation just released its Q2-2024 condominium market survey for the Greater Toronto & Hamilton Area (GTHA), and we should probably talk about some of the data:
The new condominium market reported 1,688 sales in the quarter. Outside of Q2-2020 (the pandemic), this is the lowest in the past 20 years. Note: This number is self-reported by developers.
Of the 3,625 homes launched for pre-sale during the quarter, only about 17% got absorbed/sold. That’s about ~616 homes, which isn’t very much when you spread it out across the region’s projects.
Unsold inventory increased to 25,893 homes. Urbanation equates this to 34 months of supply, versus a more “balanced level” of 10-12 months. This number breaks down to 15,157 homes in pre-construction projects, 9,788 homes in projects under construction, and 948 homes in recently completed buildings.
This is higher than Urbanation’s 20-year average, but the way I see it is that the ~15k homes in pre-construction projects could very quickly evaporate. If those projects don’t get to construction (and most probably won’t in the short term), then that inventory will disappear from the market. On the other hand, the ~11k homes under construction or recently completed is a hard number. These homes exist, or will soon exist, and they’ll need to get absorbed at some point.
There are also going to be homes that are currently sold, but where buyers ultimately say “yeah, I’m not going to be able to close.” So there will be some non-zero percentage of homes that will need to be reabsorbed. I don’t know what this percentage will be, but if it’s something like 5%, that’s not nothing. (See below for the number of condominiums under construction right now.)
Not surprisingly, average asking prices for unsold homes only declined about 2.6% over the past year. Prices have remained markably sticky. And this is how you know that development happens on the margin. Because developers are infinitely better off selling homes and starting construction, compared to holding lots of unsold inventory and starting construction, whenever. The fact that developers aren’t dropping prices to sell more homes demonstrates that they can’t. They’re hitting the floor of financial feasibility.
Finally, last quarter saw 727 new condominium homes start construction. In theory, this could have been a single tall building, though that probably wasn’t the case. As new starts fall, the number of condominiums under construction will naturally also fall. The current number is 87,508 homes, which is almost 19,000 less than a year ago. I expect this number to keep coming down.
This past week, Toronto City Council approved the launch of a new affordable housing initiative called the Rental Housing Supply Program. Here’s the agenda item if you’d like to dive into the details and read some of the supporting reports. There are a number of components to the program, and one of them is a subsidy that will be administered by way of a forgivable interest-free loan:
Subject to the adoption of the Rental Housing Supply Program, the City will continue to support RGI and affordable rental homes through the allocation of up to $260,000 per eligible affordable rental and RGI home. This is the maximum allowable funding allocation under the Rental Housing Supply Program. Actual funding per project will be determined based on the evaluation of applications on a site-by-site basis, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer, and based on project parameters and additional sources of funding that can be leveraged to support the project’s financial viability. These funds will be provided as interest free forgivable loans to eligible and approved projects and will be tied to milestones and requirements in agreements with housing providers.
Total funding for the program is $351 million. And the intent is that these funds will be distributed in the near term to 18 affordable housing projects in the city, all of which are expected to start construction sometime between now and the end of 2025. In total, this is anticipated to create about 6,000 new affordable rental homes. That’s a good thing.
Now, I don’t know anything about these projects. I don’t know if $260k is the right figure. And I don’t know if a forgivable interest-free loan is the exact right mechanism to deliver these funds. But what the program does do is recognize this: Deeply affordable housing cannot be built without some form of subsidy.
Developers are often criticized for only building expensive housing. But the reality is that developers are, for the most part, takers of market pricing. In other words, we can’t just decide to build for less. We can reduce build and finish quality to get costs down, but at a certain point, the cost to build is the cost to build.
And if that cost to build isn’t what the market would view as affordable, then you’re not going to get there without a subsidy. No developer is going to build if their expected revenues are less than their costs. Directionally, that’s what this new program appears to recognize.
