Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 159

Urban sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing. And here's Conor Dougherty in the New York Times arguing that America needs more of it to fix its housing shortage:

Even if all the regulatory restraints were removed tomorrow, developers couldn’t find enough land to satisfy America’s housing needs inside established areas. Consequently, much of the nation’s housing growth has moved to states in the South and Southwest, where a surplus of open land and willingness to sprawl has turned the Sun Belt into a kind of national sponge that sops up housing demand from higher-cost cities. The largest metro areas there have about 20 percent of the nation’s population, but over the past five years they have built 42 percent of the nation’s new single-family homes, according to a recent report by Cullum Clark, an economist at the George W. Bush Institute, a research center in Dallas.

The obvious benefit is that the resulting housing tends to be cheap. The above article is filled with examples of people buying large homes for a few hundred thousand dollars in newly formed communities across Texas. And if you live in a high-cost city, the social algorithms have almost certainly found you at some point with a shockingly cheap house in one of these places. But, Dougherty also admits that sometimes this may be the only redeeming quality:

Escobar told me he moved to Princeton because he could find a big house there for less than $300,000, but now the city is home, and he didn’t like where it was headed. Over the next four years, he said, his goal is to redevelop the downtown, try to attract offices where locals can work and build out a park system that voters recently funded with a bond measure. “You ask anybody what they love about Princeton, and it’s simply just the affordability,” Escobar told me. “We need to be more than that.”

According to the article, this isn't necessarily a problem, because it's just how cities are built in this day and age. What you do is start with low-cost housing in fringe locations. You grow as quickly as possible until traffic becomes "godawful" and vital infrastructure can't keep up. Then you implement moratoriums on new housing, and start working on other uses like, you know, employment. Eventually, after all this chaos is complete, you end up with something that possibly resembles a real city.

Yeah, I don't know, this seems like a roundabout way of getting to where you want to go. Why not build and plan for something with a high quality of life right from the start?

Cover photo by Leon Hitchens on Unsplash

I never used to listen to very many podcasts. But lately I've started doing it while heading to/from meetings, either in the car or on the train. This past week I listened to a Bankless podcast talking about crypto and AI, and one of the arguments that was made was that it's probably a safe bet to assume that we're going to need dramatically more compute and electricity in the future.

This seems obvious enough. If you recall , there's no such thing as a wealthy, low-energy nation. If you're a wealthy country, you consume a lot of energy. And that's why Build Canada recently argued that we need a kind of energy revolution. By 2050, it's likely Canada will have 2-3x the electricity demand that we have today. So today I thought I would share a few related charts .

Here's electricity production by source across the world. Coal dominates.

Looking at renewables more closely, we again see that wind and solar are making a run for it. And if you consider that solar is one of the fastest growing energy sources , it's not inconceivable that it will start to become a more dominant source in the near term. In the US, solar PV projects make up the largest share of new planned generation capacity.

But the US is not winning this race today. Right now it's China. (Chart below sourced from here .) They have the largest cumulative solar capacity, followed by the EU, and then the US. That said, coal still forms a dominant part of China's energy mix, and the country continues to construct coal-fired power plants to meet its short-term energy needs.

It's unfortunate that Canada is not on this list. That needs to change.

Cover photo by Benjamin Jopen on Unsplash

Banning foreigners from buying real estate tends to be popular policy.

In a recent public opinion survey conducted in British Columbia, 77% of respondents said they approve of the provincial foreign buyer tax increasing from 15 to 20%, and 75% said they agree with the federal government's temporary ban on foreign buyers. This is consistent with what I'd expect. But for obvious reasons, the development industry doesn't like these policies.

Foreign-buyer bans are a demand-side measure. Meaning, they are intended to ease home prices by reducing demand. The development industry doesn't like this because low demand is bad when you're trying to build things. A better scenario is something involving high demand and high supply, which is why supply-side measures tend to be more popular with industry. Even though there's always the risk of overbuilding.

But it's pretty hard to argue that more supply will help to lower home prices and then not argue the same with reduced demand via the banning of certain buyers. Both levers should, in theory, have an impact, even if the former is suboptimal for builders. That said, there remains the important question of whether there's enough foreign demand for a foreign-buyer ban to actually have an impact or whether it's just political theater.

Anecdotally, I can tell you that we have not typically seen a lot of foreign buyers in our pre-construction condominium projects. The deposit structure we use is different for non-Canadians and it tends to be a very very small percentage of buyers. But for resales in markets like Vancouver, the numbers do seem to be higher, at least based on some historical data.

According to this recent research paper , once BC started tracking the nationality of buyers in June 2016, they discovered that in the 5-week period that immediately followed, about $885 million was spent by foreigners in the Greater Vancouver Area and that they represented about 10% of all sales. It was also discovered that of these foreign buyers, about 90% of them were from China.

This data was so impactful to policy makers that it is allegedly what led to BC's foreign buyer tax in August 2016 . And since then, there's further data to suggest that it has worked to temper home prices. Here's a chart from the same research paper:

As a developer and proponent of open markets, I don't love this policy. It's a form of protectionism that discourages or flat-out blocks this kind of foreign investment from entering the country. I also worry that it can be a crutch or excuse not to expand the overall housing supply of a market. But this is seemingly not how many or most voters feel. And I can certainly appreciate why that would be the case.

Cover photo by Alejandro Luengo on Unsplash