Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 572

There is a commonly held view that short-term rentals (such as the ones you might find on platforms like Airbnb) are bad for housing affordability because they take long-term rentals out of the market and they help to drive up property values. And there's evidence for this. A study published in Harvard Business Review found that home-sharing alone might be responsible for about 20% of the average annual rent increases across the US.

Findings like these have encouraged municipalities around the world to put restrictions in place for STRs. But like most policy issues, there are nuances. And the thoughtful answers are rarely as obvious as they may initially seem. This has been part of my complaint around inclusionary zoning. It sounds good when politicians say it: let's just get developers to build us free affordable housing . But again, there are nuances to consider.

Short-term rentals are similar. A recent follow-up study that was again published in Harvard Business Review has actually uncovered some interesting longer-term benefits to STRs.

Using residential permit data, Airbnb listings, and STR policies across the US, the team found that when you look over a longer time horizon, Airbnb listings actually tend to increase the supply of residential housing. On average, a 1% increase in Airbnb listings led to a 0.769% increase in permit applications. Supply is of course good for a whole host of reasons, one of which is boosting the local tax base.

Conversely, they found that restricting STRs tended to reduce the supply of new housing and renovations. After new regulations were put in place affecting STRs, Airbnb listings fell on average by about 21% and residential permits fell by 10%.

Restrictions also seem to have a direct impact on the construction of things like accessory dwelling units (laneway and garden suites for us here in Toronto). When analyzing data in and around the borders between jurisdictions in Los Angeles County, the researchers found that areas without STR regulations saw 17% more ADU permit applications compared to the areas that had restrictions.

For the 15 US cities that the team studied, they conservatively estimated that STR restrictions reduced property values by about $2.8 billion and impacted tax revenues by about $40 million per year. Some cities, like Chicago, have also found success using STRs as an economic development strategy in distressed neighborhoods, which would further bolster the tax base.

All of these findings suggest that a more nuanced approach to STR policies is probably merited.

Photo by Andrea Davis on Unsplash

I am not counting on my nascent NFT collection to fund my retirement. At least not yet. But I have enjoyed collecting them this year and using them to learn about and get involved in the crypto space. Playing around and experimenting is one of the best ways to learn.

I recently discovered a project called The Tower (DAO) and I think that many of you, particularly those in the real estate community, might find it interesting. In its simplest form, it is an NFT project where you buy "residences" in a virtual metaverse tower. They look something like this:

The tower has 500 floors and 20 units per floor. And so there are 10,000 units in total. Each is unique.

When you buy a residence, you get, among other things, a profile page on the web that allows you to show off your residence and all of the other NFTs in your crypto wallet. You can also see who else owns on your floor.

Of course there are plans for a lot more. As part of The Tower's roadmap , the team wants to direct some of the funds that it raises toward real-world affordable housing. There's also a roommate model in the works where, presumably, people can share their residences and earn tokens.

Now, I have no idea how a project like this ends up evolving or what it ultimately becomes. But I think it's a fun example of the kind of creative projects that are being developed as a result of the fact that we can now all take ownership over scarce digital assets.

Many of these "assets" will likely end up going to $0. But others, as we have seen , will come to be worth a lot.

The postmortems surrounding Zillow's exit from the algorithmic home-flipping business are starting to surface. Here's an article from the WSJ and here's Matt Levine's take on it. The latter piece is very Levine-like and is called, "Zillow tried to make less money."

The obvious story is that Zillow's algorithms were not valuing homes correctly. But the story is more nuanced than this. In Q1 of this year, Zillow's home flipping business was actually more profitable than it had initially expected. And that's because its algorithms were consistently undervaluing homes. So when it did transact, it was doing so at favorable / low cost bases.

The problem was that the company was not transacting enough and there was a fear of losing ground to competitors like Opendoor. Apparently only about 10% of people who requested an offer from Zillow actually ended up accepting it. Margins were good, but volumes were too low.

So what Zillow did was tweak its algorithm to be more aggressive (see above chart from the WSJ). But this created the opposite problem: low/negative margins, higher volumes.

Once again, it shows you some of the challenges with bringing real estate online. The supply of homes is largely heterogenous and there are a lot of qualitative factors that play into what someone is willing to pay.