Tag: toronto real estate

• My last day at Slate

  

  As some of you may have gleaned from this recent RENX article, I have moved on from my development position at Slate Asset Management to focus exclusively on Globizen. After 8 very productive and exciting years at the company, it was time.

  I joined Slate in 2016 to help start the development group. Here is the post that I wrote back then. And it all came about because of a coffee meeting at Starbucks at the corner of Yonge & King.

  At the time, Lucas Manuel was looking to hire someone, and so our mutual friend, Kieran Boyd, connected us with the expectation that I would make some industry introductions. But at the end of our meeting, Lucas was quick to say, “actually, I think you should come join Slate.”

  And obviously, that’s what I did.

  Fast forward to today, and Slate has grown into a global investment and asset management company with $13 billion of assets under management across Canada, the US, and Europe. And within this platform is a supremely talented development group with an awesome portfolio of sites and projects.

  Thankfully though, this is not a goodbye. Myself and the Globizen team will still be working very closely with Slate on a handful of development projects, including One Delisle and Corktown. And the intent is that we will continue to work on new projects together in the future.

  I learned a lot during my time at Slate, and I have so much respect for Blair and Brady Welch and the rest of the partners. They have built an incredible global company and assembled some of the most creative, entrepreneurial, and smartest people I have ever worked with.

  Thank you for everything over the last 8 years.

  So what’s the plan for Globizen? This will be the topic of a follow-up post.

  2024.07.01

• Toronto housing market has slowed — do you care?

  If you’ve been following the Toronto housing market and/or following any panicky resale agents/brokers on Twitter, you’ll know that things have shifted over the last few months. Here’s what broker (and my friend) Christopher Bibby had to say about the market in his most recent newsletter:

  As anticipated, April has ended up being one of the defining months of the 2022 real estate market. With the recent fragility we are seeing, it is clear that the market peaked in February. In fact, the Toronto Real Estate Board, in its most recent Market Watch, claims that month-over-month prices could be down by 2.6%—which is very likely. TREB also indicated that the overall number of year-over-year transactions in March was down by approximately 30%. I deferred the release of this newsletter because weekend activity positively altered some of my previous commentary. The key takeaway, however, is that sentiment has shifted in our marketplace.

  But let me paraphrase the conclusion of Bibby’s newsletter with two words: who cares? If you think that Toronto (or some other city) will remain an important global city by 2025, 2030, or even 2040, you really shouldn’t be fussed by what the market is doing over the span of a few months.

  Moreover, I can tell you that my least favorite time to go out and buy real estate is when everyone else is submitting silly offers and clamoring to buy whatever they can find.

  2022.04.19

• Small suites — responding to the market or social engineering?

  

  Let’s talk some more about floor plan designs and the economic constraints that form part of the decision making process. There continues to be a narrative out there that for-profit developers only want to construct small apartments (a form of social engineering perhaps) and that they aren’t focused on livability. So let’s dig into some of the constraints.

  Consider that the average price of a new construction condominium in downtown Toronto last quarter (Q1 2021) was $1,419 per square foot. And I bet that this number has already increased. Now consider that, in the City of Toronto, the “growing up guidelines” suggest that an ideal family-sized three bedroom suite should be around 1,140 square feet.

  When you multiply these two numbers together, you get an “ideal” three bedroom suite that costs just over $1.6 million. Of course, this is without parking. So if you want downtown parking, add another $100-200k (which, at this price point, is still almost certainly going to be a loss leader for the developer).

  All of a sudden, you’ve now got a $1.7 – 1.8 million residence. This will work in some submarkets and in some locations, but certainly not all.

  So what happens is that the end price becomes a constraint. And in order to make the suite more affordable, the developer will naturally look for ways to make it smaller. Turn this into a 900 square foot three bedroom and all of a sudden you shave off over $300k from the price.

  The point I am hoping to make is that developers generally aspire to respond to what the (sub)market wants. If the (sub)market wants a certain price point, developers will try and meet that need. If the (sub)market wants massive apartments, developers will gladly deliver. (We’re working on combining some supremely awesome suites at this very moment in fact.)

  It is “what if” instead of “should be” thinking.

  Photo by Loewe Technologies on Unsplash

  2021.06.03

• Integral House sells for $18 million

  One of the most famous and important houses in Toronto, and in North America, just sold. It was reported last week in the Globe and Mail in an article called, “Integral House finds buyer amid wave of high-end Toronto deals.”

  Designed by Shim-Sutcliffe Architects, the 18,000 square foot Integral House was commissioned by mathematician and musician James Stewart. It was completed in 2009 at a cost that seems to vary widely depending on where I look online. But it did just sell for $18 million.

  For photos and drawings of the house, click here. The section is really interesting because of the way in which the house is built into the side of a ravine. The house is 5 storeys, but only 2 of these levels would be visible from the street.

  The article goes on to mention a bunch of other high-end transactions that were consummated during this pandemic, ranging from a $13 million home in Forest Hill to a $9 million condo in Yorkville. These are all positive signs for this pandemic market.

  2020.06.30

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

  

  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

  2018.04.06

• A real estate dynasty without heirs

  

  Throughout history, real estate has been a tremendous source of wealth for a lot of people. Many family dynasties were created by accumulating property, holding it, and then riding the valuation wave.

  Here in Toronto, there was the Reichmann family. At one point they had created the largest real estate company in the world (Olympia & York). But I’m not sure exactly how much of that wealth remains today following the company’s bankruptcy in the early 90s. That was a tough time in Toronto real estate.

  In line with this, the NY Times recently published a fascinating account of the Wendel family in New York. In terms of how they conducted themselves, they were the polar opposite of some of today’s real estate families (i.e. Trump), but they certainly built an empire.

  Here are two snippets from the NY Times:

  In the early 20th century, the Wendels were perhaps the most powerful landlords in New York City, a dynasty with more than 150 properties in Manhattan worth over $1 billion in today’s dollars. The Wendels were the delight of the local papers, for, rich as they were, the family — six sisters and a brother, all unmarried — lived together in a shuttered mansion without electricity on the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and 39th Street, and dressed in grim Victorian garb that had gone out of style half a century earlier. Tour buses regularly pulled up in front of “the House of Mystery.”

  Alongside their austere lives, they also practiced a strict and disciplined approach to investing: 

  Never mortgage a property; never sell anything; never pay for repairs; and never forget that Broadway moves uptown at a rate of 10 blocks a decade.

  In fact, they were so draconian in their approach, that the sisters were supposedly prohibited from marrying. Unions were not allowed because that, according to the NY Times, “would disperse the accumulated property and put it under other names than Wendel.”

  But in the end, this meant that the last Wendel – Ella, who died in 1931 – died alone and with no one to pass along the empire to. So instead it was distributed to various charities and the inevitable “cousins” that come out of the woodwork when a rich person passes.

  I guess the moral of the story here is the old saying that you have to “give to receive.” From the sounds of it, the Wendel family didn’t like to do that.

  Image from March 15, 1931 obituary

  2016.04.23

• Could a decentralized sales model work?

  

  Since I started blogging last year, I’ve been getting regular emails from both people I know and from readers I don’t know (but hope to one day meet) asking for advice on buying real estate. Usually somebody sends me the link to a place they’re thinking about buying, and they want to know what I think about the property and the neighborhood.

  I’m more than happy to help when I can and I try to be brutally honest in terms of what I think. What’s interesting about this dynamic though, is that I don’t have a vested interest in any of the outcomes. Whether I tell that person I love the place or that it’s shit, I don’t stand to gain anything. And that means I can be brutally honest. It’s for this same reason that customer reviews on websites can work so well. 

  Because on the flip side, if I make money when you buy, then guess what, I’m going to want you to buy. That’s how it works for any industry–from financial services to real estate to retail. That’s why some stores will promote the fact that their sales people are not on commission. Although you could argue that those sales people are then less motivated to help you.

  In any event, all of this got me wondering if there isn’t some way to take customer reviews to the next level. Could a decentralized sales model work?

  Last year I had a conference call with one of the chief officers of one of the top 3 real estate websites in the US and I was told that they had actually tested a “social buying model.” It ultimately failed, but it strikes me as an interesting concept. Reviews are starting to feel a bit dated now on the social web, but I think the idea of crowdsourced input is here to stay.

  Image: Flickr

  2014.05.25