Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 724

Toronto has more people living in apartments than not. Looking at 2016 census data , the City of Toronto has about 1,112,930 occupied private dwellings and the breakdown between apartments (both lower and higher than 5 storeys) and grade-related housing is roughly 60/40. If you look at what's been built more recently , the split is closer to 80/20. From 1996 to 2014, about 78% of all housing completions in the city were condominiums/apartments.

So what is obvious to me is that the City of Toronto is becoming more dense, rather than less dense, and that family housing is destined to become more urban. As of 2011, there were 10,145 more families with children living in apartments/condominiums in the city compared to 15 years earlier. By comparison, the number of families with children living in low-rise housing remained more or less flat over this same time period.

Of course, what this data doesn't speak to is the number of people and families that may have opted to leave the City of Toronto for the suburbs -- driving until they qualify for the kind of housing product that they would like to consume. The number of children living in higher density housing might be increasing within the city, but we probably shouldn't ignore the pull toward the suburbs that still exists during family formation.

Cities around the world are working to make their urban environments more suitable to families and young children. Here in Toronto we have something known as the Growing Up Guidelines. But the focus seems to be largely on design considerations -- think playrooms and stroller-friendly foyers. That's crucial, but it's not everything. There are also very real economic realities to consider.

The average price of remaining condo inventory in the Greater Toronto Area last quarter was nearly $1,100 psf . That puts a family-sized 1,000 sf suite at $1.1 million -- and a lot more if you're in a central neighborhood. The average would be closer to $1.5 million downtown. Obviously not all families can afford this. So there's an affordability challenge. It's one thing for the critics to say that developers should be building larger suites, but the market needs to be there.

Another consideration is that of financing. Most developers rely on construction financing in order to build their projects. And in order to build a new condominium, there is typically a requirement to pre-sell a certain number of suites (revenue is the actual governor). This is generally a lot easier to do with smaller suites and with investor suites because these buyers tend to be more comfortable waiting out construction.

Families, on the other hand, usually have a more immediate time horizon. It's harder to forecast when the need will arise and it may not be financially viable to do that pre-emptively. And so I would argue that in addition to having an affordability challenge, we also have a financing structure in place that biases the type of homes that get built. There are, of course, advantages to this model. Pre-sales are a way for lenders to mitigate risk. It helps to ensure that the market doesn't get ahead of itself. But there are side effects.

Despite all this, we are seeing more families with children in higher density housing. Anecdotally, I see it happening in elevators with the number of strollers. This trend is destined to continue, but the winds are not entirely at the back of this shift.

The venture capital industry likes to talk about the importance of investing in ideas that are and turn out to be both non-consensus and successful. The idea here is that if an idea or opportunity is already consensus, then there's too much money flooding into that space and it becomes too difficult to make money. This is particularly true in venture capital where a select few companies usually end up generating most of the returns. This is a high risk business. Supposedly , even the best VCs end up having to write off a big portion of their deals.

But I don't think that this logic need only apply to venture capital. In real estate development, you are often faced with similar situations. For example, if an area is already consensus -- that is, it is already considered to be highly desirable -- then capital is going to naturally flow into it and land prices will be relatively high. These high land prices might be justified by the revenue side of your pro forma, or they might not be. I know many developers who avoid "core" locations simply because the land is too much and the margins are too little.

On the other hand, if an area is non-consensus -- that is, you're not sure people will want to rent or buy new space in the area -- then the land prices should reflect this. But here's the thing. What you're doing is trading, among other things, a lower land price for greater market risk. Because the non-consensus bet could turn out to be either successful or unsuccessful. People will either want to occupy space here or they won't. And remember, by definition, it being non-consensus means that most people believe they won't -- or at least not at the prices you might need in order to make the math work.

What all of this means is that if you're right about something that most people think is wrong, then you have the opportunity to do quite well. (Though I am not suggesting that you need to follow this framework in all situations.) This is on my mind right now because it feels to me that there are certain consensus opinions emerging as a result of this pandemic. For example, opinions around the demise of office space and the demise of downtown living. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you'll know that I think these death-of-the-city predictions are largely bullshit.

I could be wrong. Or I could be right.

This is an interesting infill housing project in Villa Allende, Argentina. Designed by Studio LZ, the community contains seven homes, built across a 600 square meter site. Each L-shaped home is 63 square meters and hugs a private courtyard space (many of which have an outdoor BBQ). On the main floor of each home are the kitchen and living areas. And on the second floor are two bedrooms, as well as a second bathroom.

It's a simple but clever design. Looking at a plan of the project, you can see that, despite its compactness, the L-shaped houses have been arranged in such a way that there are no direct facing conditions. The courtyards and window exposures alternate. It's almost as if they are Tetris pieces that have been pulled apart. The result is a dense community that still manages to offer some of the benefits of low-rise housing.

Photos by Gonzalo Viramonte