Earlier today, the Conservative Party of Canada made the following housing policy announcement. If elected this fall, they would (copied verbatim from here ):
Fix the mortgage stress test to ensure that first-time homebuyers aren't unnecessarily prevented from accessing mortgages and work with OFSI to remove the stress test from mortgage renewals to give homeowners more options.
Increase amortization periods on insured mortgages to 30 years for first-time homebuyers to lower monthly payments.
Launch an inquiry into money laundering in the real estate sector and work with our industry partners to root out corrupt practices that inflate housing prices.
Make surplus federal real estate available for development to increase the supply of housing.
There aren't a lot of details here, but Andrew Scheer did say that his party would eliminate the financing " stress test " for all mortgage renewals. Currently, you're only exempt if you renew with your existing lender.
As Rob Carrick points out , this is a pretty sensible move. (Though he doesn't agree with "fixing" the stress test.) The current situation gives the incumbent lender almost monopolistic power if the borrower can't meet the stress test and is unable to shop around for a better rate.
At the same time, we know that the price of a highly levered asset tends to correlate with financing ability. So depending on what serves you better, you may be either concerned or delighted that this increased buying power could spur further housing consumption/appreciation.
From 1899 to 1902, the north side of 42nd Street, between 7th Avenue and Broadway in Manhattan, was occupied by the Pabst Hotel . At the time, this neighborhood was called Longacre Square.
Owned by the Pabst Brewing Company of Milwaukee, the building was part of a growing network of hotels and restaurants that the company used to promote its beer. Note the cool rooftop sign.
The portico you see in the above picture was highly controversial. I guess some things never change. City officials were criticized for allowing such a structure to encroach over a public right-of-way. Curiously, the Times was one of its biggest critics. A judge ultimately ordered for it to be removed in 1901.
The building also came down not long after. The introduction of New York City's first subway -- operated by the private Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) Company -- began to spur new investment in the area. The first IRT line ran right through Longacre Square.
Adolph S. Ochs was the owner of the The New York Times during this period and he believed that the new subway line would increase foot traffic in the area. Betting on transit is clearly not a new phenomenon. So in January 1905, the newspaper moved into a new headquarters on the site of the former Pabst Hotel; a building that it developed for itself.
Today this building is known as One Times Square . Here is a photo of it under construction in 1903:
And here is a photo of the completed building in 1919 (at this point, it was no longer occupied by the paper):
At the time of its completion, it was one of the tallest buildings in New York City. And eventually, perhaps as a result of some encouragement on the part of Ochs, Longacre Square was renamed to commemorate this new building and the paper. It became known as Times Square .
By 1913, the Times had outgrown the building and would move down the street. But not before it would introduce a now famous New Year's Eve celebration in the Square. The Times would continue to own the building up until 1961.
The area continued to evolve into an important theater district and transit hub. Everything connected through Times Square. Sadly, the Great Depression was not kind to the area and, either because of it or alongside it, Times Square declined into an area of vice filled with everything from burlesque shows to prostitution. This would come to define the area for almost the balance of the 20th century.
It would take many attempts starting in the 1980s to try and redirect Times Square's now entrenched reputation. In 1982, the Department of City Planning created the Special Midtown Zoning District , which attempted to attract developers with tax breaks and other subsidies. It didn't really work .
The City eventually looked to eminent domain to try and tidy up the area. But property owners -- many of whom owned the adult businesses in the district -- objected via a group known as the Coalition for Free Expression.
It would take a few other mayors, many legal battles, and interim ordinances such as the 60/40 rule -- which allowed adult businesses to continue operating as long as no more than 40% of their floor area were allocated to sex -- before things would really change.
Today, or at least as of 2015-2016 , Times Square represents 15% of New York City's total economic output. And it does this via 0.1% of the city's total land area and 7% of its total employment.
Real estate in the district is estimated to be worth over $7 billion, with the Square generating about $2.5 billion in municipal tax revenue and about $2.3 billion in state revenue. A lot has changed in more than a century. But perhaps most importantly, the portico came down.
Joshua Levine's recent (WSJ Magazine) piece on John Pawson , -- the architect who "elevated nothingness to an art" -- is a good read.
It's mostly about the country retreat that he recently completed for himself and his wife in the English countryside, but there's also lots about his minimalist architecture, his career, his work with hotelier/developer Ian Schrager, and his passion for photography.
I like this bit about architectural simplicity. The great irony of minimalism, and the reason why brands such as Calvin Klein and Jil Sander began working with John Pawson to leverage his aesthetic, is that it's often more difficult to do less. Getting the details right costs money. Hence this great line from the New Yorker:
As the New Yorker cartoon put it, “Only the rich can afford this much nothing.” Don’t expect a rebuttal from Pawson. “It is big, and it is expensive, you know. It’s sophisticated architectural simplicity. This isn’t a religious thing, and it isn’t as simple as you can go. You can go a lot simpler than this.”
I also like what the following says about labels and what it means to be defined as something:
Slowing down for Pawson isn’t all that slow. He takes photos constantly and has always used the camera as his third eye. In 2017, Phaidon published Spectrum, a book of his photos, many of them first posted on his Instagram (“I said, ‘Well, I’m not a photographer,’ and they said, ‘You are a photographer,’ so now I’m a photographer”).
Click here for the rest of the article from WSJ Magazine. And if you aren't familiar with John Pawson, here is his minimal website.
