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: toronto housing

  • FYI, new home coming soon

    This is not a post about laneway housing. Okay, it sort of is. But there’s a broader point to discuss. Recently, a local Toronto newspaper ran this article talking about how a bunch of people are upset that their neighbor is building an as-of-right garden suite. Here’s an excerpt:

    “The members of the community know that they can’t stop the building of this ‘garden suite’. However, they want to change the bylaw to ensure that future ‘garden suites’ can’t be built without community consultation and an environmental assessment,” said a news release from a number of residents in the area that was sent to Toronto media outlets including Beach Metro Community News last week.

    This raises some interesting questions.

    For one, what would be the purpose of this community consultation? Is it just a “Hey, I’m going to be building a garden suite” and then homeowners go do it exactly how they want anyway? Or, would it be an extensive community engagement process where homeowners would be expected to gather feedback, submit a report to the city, and consider design changes?

    And, would this apply to all low-rise housing? In other words, would all homeowners need to consultant their neighbors and do an environmental assessment before pulling a building permit? What if someone just wants to build a small extension or a shed? Or, are we only talking about laneway and garden suites?

    I’m not really sure what the exact intentions are here — besides delaying new housing — but I can tell you that it’s a terrible idea.

    Laneway and garden suites should never require community consultation and/or an environmental assessment. I mean, this is the whole point of allowing them as-of-right. It’s so you don’t have to do these things and you can go straight to a building permit. This is way too small of a housing type to burden with obstacles.

    In fact, the same is true of larger housing types. In my opinion, conventional mid-rise buildings should not have to go through a full rezoning and they should not have to consult with the community. We already know what these buildings look like. We know that they make for great homes. And yet they’re our most expensive housing type to build.

    Removing barriers (and reducing project durations) is a sure-fire way to make them cheaper. Especially in a higher interest rate environment.

  • Thinking about the things we’re used to

    This is a powerful perspective:

    We evolved to be wary of change. Our attention is limited, new things can be a threat and the status quo feels comfortable.

    As a result, we spend a lot of time and energy being afraid (and arguing about) the upcoming changes in our lives, but almost no time at all thinking about the things we’re used to.

    As an example of this tension, check out this “exit interview” with Toronto’s former chief city planner, Gregg Lintern. The underlying theme is change and why it’s desperately needed.

    But of course, that’s not easy.

    The interviewer, Victoria Gibson, mentions this survey stat: nearly half (47%) of all Torontonians think the city is building too little housing, and yet only about a quarter (27%) think their area could handle more.

    We need this, but not here. Probably because we’re used to the way things are.

    But if you read the interview, you’ll see that the answer, or at least one answer, is to make the conversation personal, and ultimately think critically about, you know, the things we’re used to.

    Change starts with not giving the benefit of the doubt to the status quo.

  • Urban families

    We are getting ready for first occupancies at Junction House and it is exciting to see how many young families — with children — are looking forward to moving into the building’s larger 2-storey suites. (These are the suites that gave the project its name — Junction House.)

    From the outset, this was always a part of our development thesis. You can’t, or at least it’s very difficult, to pre-sell an entire building of larger suites in Toronto. But we figured that in a submarket like the Junction, which is very popular with young families, that there had to be some buyers who would want a house-like residence.

    Meaning, two floors of living spaces, upstairs bedrooms (better acoustic separation), larger living spaces, and a terrace for BBQing and gardening, among other things.

    We are now seeing this play out with the wonderful people coming in for their pre-delivery inspections, and it’s a really nice thing to see. Not only as a developer, but as a dedicated urbanite and lover of Toronto. I am not suggesting that it’s for everyone. But clearly there is a segment of the market that wants this.

    For a list of available homes at Junction House, including floor plans and pricing, click here.

  • Toronto condos on the rise again

    CIBC Deputy Chief Economist Benjamin Tal was recently interviewed by Larysa Harapyn of the Financial Post about the state of the housing market in the Greater Toronto Area. The message he delivers is pretty clear: “If you think that Toronto is unaffordable now, you wait.” The long-term fundamentals in this market remain strong. Demand is outstripping supply and will likely continue to do so, which is why Tal also stresses the importance of delivering more purpose-built rental housing. If you can’t see the video above, click here. (And with that, I think it’s time to switch topics for tomorrow’s post. That’s enough Toronto housing for one week.)

  • Land and improvements

    At a high level there are two components to the value of a house. There’s the value of the land and there’s the value of all the improvements. That is, the bricks, wood, and other stuff that form the actual house. When a media outlet runs a sensational headline about some shack in Toronto selling for, oh I don’t know, a million dollars, what it actually means is that the land in this particular area was just valued by somebody at this number. In fact, if the property is very clearly a “knock down” the improvements sitting on the land become a liability/cost rather than anything of value. Because whoever buys the land will almost certainly need to remove the improvements before they can build whatever it is they want to build.

    This distinction between land and improvements is a valuable one for many reasons. Here’s one example. In cases where the improvements aren’t some shack, you may be faced with a scenario where a property can be valued in two different ways. You can value it based on the development potential of the underlying land or you can value it based on the income (either in-place or potential) that the improvements are generating, or could be generating with some hard work on your part. If the development value is greater than the value of the improvements, then there will be pressure to redevelop. Conversely, if the opposite is true, it is likely that not much will happen other than maybe capital expenditures applied to the existing building(s).

    Of course, you could also run into a scenario where there’s little development potential and there’s zero ability to invest in the existing improvements, either because the market rents are too low in the area or because they’re capped and/or controlled in some way. In this scenario, it’s likely that not much will happen other than the normal and expected depreciation of the improvements. Maybe one day the development/investment math will work. But in the interim, you probably won’t be seeing any of those sensational media headlines.

    Photo by Andre Gaulin on Unsplash

  • Half of Toronto condos completed last year became new rental housing

    image

    Shaun Hildebrand (Urbanation) and Benjamin Tal (CIBC) published a report today called, “A Window Into the World of Condo Investors.” In it they revealed that last year (2017 data) no less than 48% of the Greater Toronto Area’s newly completed condo units were closed on by “rental investors.” In other words, almost half of the units became new rental supply.

    This stat was not surprisingly turned into clickbait-y type headlines like, “Half of Toronto condos bought last year were by investors”; whereas an alternate headline might read: “Half of Toronto condos completed last year became new rental housing.” Not as jarring, I know.

    In any event, there are a bunch of other interesting stats in the reports. Here are a few of them:

    – 80% of all new home sales in the GTA last year were condo.

    – Average resale condo prices (per square foot) increased by 26% last year and rents grew by 9%.

    – Over 20% of condo investors purchased their property with no mortgage.

    – Average down payment made by investors was 20%; non-investors were closer to 15%, likely because of mortgage insurance and other factors.

    – Out of the condo investors who took possession in 2017 with a mortgage, no less than 44% are in a negative cash flow position – meaning their rental income isn’t covering their carrying costs. 

    – The returns, which the report calls exceptional, have been coming in the form of price appreciation.

    – As a stress test for the market – what if all these negative cash flow investors suddenly sold their condos? – the report also estimates that if you took all of the rental investors who closed in 2017 with a mortgage and who are in a negative cash flow position greater than $500 per month, it would represent only 3.4% of the total annual supply of condos (both new and resale product).

    If you would like to check out the full report, you can do that over here.

    Photo by Scott Webb on Unsplash