Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 686

This pandemic seems to have been good for real estate located in places that people like to spend time in, but maybe had to limit their time there in the past because of things they had to do like, you know, work in an office. This includes everywhere from "cottage country" outside of Toronto to sunny destinations like Miami.

Here are some figures that I came across for South Florida via Analytics Miami. Comparing November 2020 to a year prior, condo transaction volumes in Miami-Dade country are, interestingly, up 4.3% for condos less than $1 million and up 61.4% for condos worth more than $1 million.

Somewhat similarly, single family home transaction volumes in Miami-Dade county (for the same time period) are down 5.2% for houses worth less than $1 million and up 100% for houses worth more than $1 million.

Sometimes you see a decline like this (the -5.2%) because there simply aren't enough houses on the market for less than $1 million. But it could also be that more rich people are looking for expensive properties in Miami compared to last year.

As you may have gathered from here and here and here , I'm not all that bullish on the permanency of this whole working from home thing. But there's no denying that there's a very clear trend around people moving to places that are warmer . This was happening well before COVID-19.

There is also some evidence that rich people are starting (continuing?) to eschew high tax states like California for lower tax states like Florida and Texas. I don't have the data to be able to comment on how meaningful this trend is, but, for whatever it's worth, apparently Elon Musk just moved to Austin .

Photo by aurora.kreativ on Unsplash

Here is a good example of why "missing middle" housing is so challenging to build in Toronto, despite everyone talking about how great it would be if only we could build more of it.

It's the story of a minor variance application that was asking to sever a 50-foot lot at 2165 Gerrard Street East so that two semi-detached buildings and two laneway suites could be built. It would have added 10 family-sized rental units to a site that is on a streetcar line and that is within walking distance of both the subway and regional rail. And yet the consent to sever was denied.

How come you ask?

“I don’t believe dividing the property is in the best interest of the community,” said committee member Carl Knipfel, himself an architect and planner who complimented the beauty of the existing house and critiqued the design of the new buildings. “What is proposed is too dense … I really have serious concerns as to where this consent may lead us.”

The last sentence is the best part.

The article then goes on to argue that this is really all about the supremacy of single family homes and the desire to keep renters out of these neighborhoods. (Hey Airbnb, it's not just short-term rentals that people have a problem with ; it's also long-term rentals.)

The kicker, for Mr. Galbraith [the project's planner], is he knows if he wanted to sever the lot for two single-family homes he could get that permission without delay and likely also get permission to build more than local zoning allows.

“I can get variances for a one-unit McMansion every day of the week,” he said. “Lot coverage variances are very common; you want to take a bungalow down and make some big ugly house with a weird roof and a high first floor? You see those all over East York and Etobicoke.”

If missing middle-type housing is "too dense" for sites that are endowed with every form of fixed rail transit that we have available in this city, then your guess is as good as mind as to where the hell it's supposed to go. It's time to grow up Toronto.

Four years ago I wrote about a great essay that Paul Graham had published way back in 2009 about two different kinds of schedules: the manager's schedule and the maker's schedule. Put differently, the manager's schedule is one of command. It is for bosses to drop in for 15, 30, or 60 minutes at a time, say a bunch of things, and then jump to the next meeting.

The maker's schedule, on the other hand, is one of doing, whether that be programming or working on an excel model. And the reality is that you can't make or do much with only 15, 30, or 60 minutes. To make anything of real substance you need longer uninterrupted blocks of time. You need time to get into the zone.

I'm reminded of this dichotomy now, more than ever, because of video conferencing. It has never been easier to overload a calendar with meetings. Consequently, it has never been easier to screw up a maker's schedule.