Erica Alini of The Globe and Mail just published this article called, "The era of the shoebox condo is over." You should read it, and not just because I'm quoted in it. One thing that I appreciate about the article is that it gets into some of the development economics underlying new projects.
The high-level math provided by Bryn Davidson of Lanefab (Vancouver) once again shows that land is the residual claimant in a pro forma and that the price developers can feasibly pay needs to be greater than the status-quo value. It's exactly what I was getting at in this recent post about the Impossible Toronto publication.
The other thing I'd like to highlight is the following chart showing the share of three-bedroom apartments in newly built condominiums and purpose-built rentals in the city:
What's interesting about this six-year period of completions is that there isn't a meaningful difference between condominiums and rentals. Average unit sizes as a whole tend to be slightly larger in rental projects, but in terms of the share of three-bedroom suites and the average size of those three-bedrooms, the differences aren't meaningful.
This suggests that it's less about investors "distorting" the market (see pundits talking about the condo market), and more about the fact that the demand isn't there. And the reason the demand isn't there is because these types of homes are expensive. If you can afford $5,000 per month in rent, you generally have some options.
Table from the Globe and Mail; cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Brandon Donnelly
1 comment
This piece really stood out to me compared to others I’ve seen on the same topic. You managed to keep the content engaging while still being very informative. I learned a lot and didn’t feel bored for a second https://fnaf-2.io