In the 9th century, France enacted into law a way to buy and sell property through something known as une vente en viager. My understanding is that there are other European countries that also allow this, but that it's most popular in France, even if it still forms a relatively small portion of the market.

Here's how it typically works. You're an older person (or older couple) and you want to use your home to generate some cash, but you also want to stay living in your home until the very end. So you offer it up for sale en viager occupé. (This is the most popular option, but there's also le viager libre, where the seller moves out immediately.)

Whoever buys it will usually pay you, the seller, in two ways. They will pay you an upfront lump sum (called le bouquet) and a recurring payment (called la rente viagère) up until the day you die (or both of you die). Once this happens, the buyer then gets full enjoyment of the property. The transaction is complete.

So why would either party want to sell and buy in this way?

Well, if you're the seller, the obvious benefits are that (1) you get to continue living in your home and (2) you get some money now and for the rest of your life. This can be useful if you, say, run out of cash during retirement. It's a means to financial independence.

For buyers, it's the opportunity to maybe acquire a property below its current market price. Because if you don't have access to the home until some undetermined date in the future, well then a discount will obviously need to be applied. The initial lump sum payment is often around 30% of the current value. The other attractive feature is that it's a form of financing for buyers who may not have all the money they need today.

In the end, this is a bet on life expectancy. Because if the seller ends up living for a really long time, then they get the benefit of more annuity payments. However, if they end up living fewer years than expected, then the buyer benefits from having to pay less in annuity payments. They got to buy below market.

It's a fascinating pricing and time-value-of-money exercise, but it's also a potentially morbid way to buy real estate. On the one hand, you could be helping someone live a dignified retirement. On the other hand, you stand to benefit if they die sooner than expected.

Cover photo by Zach Dyson on Unsplash

One of the things I included in my list of "how to improve the feasibility of infill housing" was the adoption of single-stair buildings. So today I'm happy to share that next week the Canadian Urban Institute — in collaboration with LGA Architectural Partners — will be hosting a series of online micro-conferences covering this topic. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you'll know that LGA is one of the leading voices, if not the leading voice, advocating for this important building code change.

Here are the event posters:

And here are the links if you'd like to register for any of the sessions:

• Single Stair Sessions Day 1 — "The 3 Ps: Pilot Projects and Prototypes"

• Single Stair Sessions Day 2 — "The 2 Ss: Safety and Sustainability"

• CityTalk | Live — "Addressing Canada's Housing Supply: Can Regulations Drive Housing Innovation?"

We are actively underwriting new missing middle housing across central Toronto. And I can tell you that project feasibility would benefit enormously from this code change. Single-stair buildings are also allowed in many/most other parts of the world, and so we already know that it can make for better homes and that it doesn't need to compromise life safety. It's great that the city-building community is now increasingly focused on this opportunity.

Cover photo by Mika Wegelius on Unsplash

Here is an interesting study that looked at the impact of urban highways on social connections within the 50 largest US cities. To measure this, the researchers used Twitter data from 2012-2013, which is a period of time where the default setting in the mobile app was to tag each tweet with the user's precise geographic coordinates.

This allowed the team to generally figure out where a user is likely to live. If you're often tweeting from the same residential address, then there's a good chance that's home. They then looked at things like mutual followship as a measure of social ties. And what they ultimately found was that in all 50 cities, urban highways exhibit a strong barrier effect. They measured this using something they call a "barrier score."

Now this sounds right and supports lots of other evidence that highways divide cities; but Twitter isn't necessarily a place where mutual followship means you actually know the person in real life and you regularly walk down the street to see if they can come out and play. So one of the things that the researchers also did was work to replicate their findings using data from another social network called Gowalla.

I very vaguely remember this platform, but it is/was a social network where users are supposed to connect with people they actually know and share their locations through check-ins. With this data they found that their "barrier score" was even more pronounced, which makes sense given that the platform's social graph should have had, in theory, stronger real-life ties.

But even if you don't believe the social data, these results should make intuitive sense. Highway underpasses and overpasses tend not to be the best environments for pedestrians. They're usually a clear break in a city's urban fabric, which can make people second guess whether they really want or need to cross it.

Cover photo by Tom Barrett on Unsplash

The other night, I went down a Parisian real estate rabbit hole on Twitter. And one of the things that kept coming up was this half joke: The biggest developer in Paris today is the mayor. The reason for this is that the city is targeting 40% of all homes to be public housing by 2035 (of which 30% will be social housing and 10% will be moderately affordable).

Supposedly this is to stem the steady outflow of people from the capital as a result of housing being too expensive. But it means that a lot of new public housing will need to be created. As of January 1, 2021, the official estimate was 260,563 "logements sociaux" in the capital, which translates into 22.4% of all principal residences.

To hit this 40% goal, the city is going to need to create somewhere around 140,000 new public housing dwellings between now and 2035. So how does it plan to do this? By being a developer, of course. A big part of the strategy seems to be to convert existing buildings (d'adapter l’existant). And to execute on this, the city is leveraging something known as "le droit de préemption."

The way it works is like a right of first refusal clause (ROFR), except that it's not something that was contractually negotiated between market participants, it's just the law. What it means is that if a property owner goes to sell their building and they receive an offer, the city has an automatic ROFR and can choose to buy the building at whatever that third party was willing to pay.

Over the last two years, the city has elected to do this 84 times and has spent over €1.1 billion, according to Business Immo. And since the beginning of this year, they've done it 9 times, spending about €67 million on the following properties:

For those of you who are visual learners like me, here's the first property on the list:

It's certainly ambitious.

But, for the most part, it does not create a lot of net new housing, even though the city is also aiming to buy office buildings, parking garages, and other non-residential buildings. APUR previously estimated that for every 1 unit of new public housing, 0.6 existing units are being demolished. So the most accurate way to think about this initiative is that it represents the socialization of Paris' housing stock into public hands.

This runs in contrast to what we've been talking about recently with cities like Minneapolis and Austin, who have instead added a lot of new market-rate housing in order to temper rents and increase affordability. Paris is reducing its stock of market-rate housing.

At the same time, the city also enacted new policy prohibiting homes that consume more than 450 kWh/m2 from being rented. This is intended to force landlords to renovate, but it will certainly have a further impact on supply, at least in the short term.

It's also worth noting that all of this is happening at a time when Paris' housing market is in broad decline (less transactions, higher days on market, lower prices, and so on). Like Toronto, it started around the middle of 2022. And it's something that Paris hadn't seen since the 2008 financial crisis.

Chart by CoStar via Business Immo; cover photo by Salomé Watel on Unsplash

Since 2009, policymakers in Minneapolis having been implementing land use changes to encourage more housing supply. Some of these changes have included eliminating parking minimums, encouraging multi-family buildings up to 6 storeys on commercial corridors, establishing height minimums in high-density zones, and permitting triplexes on all residential lots. It's, from what I can tell, the type of stuff that many cities have now done or are looking to do. But it seems to have worked remarkably well in Minneapolis. According to The Pew, between 2017 and 2022, the city issued permits for nearly 21,000 new homes and nearly 87% of them were for homes in buildings with 20 or more suites.

This is interesting. It tells us that the triplex policies don't seem to be doing all that much, but that the market has certainly taken to larger multi-family projects. This is an accomplishment. Even more importantly, though, is that it seems to be having a measurable impact on average rents. During the same time period as above, Minneapolis increased its housing stock by 12% and average rents increased by only 1%. Whereas the rest of Minnesota only increased its housing stock by 4% and, maybe as a result, average rents went up by 14%. Changes in homelessness also look dramatically different.

It looks to be a similar story to what's playing out in Austin: increased housing supply is tempering rent growth. (Okay, in the case of Austin it seems to be causing rents to fall.) What I would be interested in seeing now is a further breakdown of this 87% share. Because 20 suites is a different kind of build than 300 suites. It's different for developers and it's different for cities. And I'd like to know if the market is favoring one over the other, or if it's building apartments at all scales. If the city is in fact building lots of new apartments at multiple scales, then this is even more of an accomplishment. It means there might be no "missing middle."

Cover photo by Eastman Childs on Unsplash

Earlier this week, Chinese architect Liu Jiakun was awarded the 2025 Pritzker Prize. For those of you who may not be familiar, the Pritzker Prize is generally considered to be the architect world's most prestigious prize. (The full list of laureates can be found, here.)

Jiakun is based in Chengdu, China and he has worked exclusively within the country. His largest project is a mixed-use complex known as the West Village, which is a truly enormous courtyard building that exists at the scale of a neighborhood.

It houses cultural, recreational, commercial, and office spaces, all of which are connected by an elaborate network of pedestrian and cyclist ramps. Here's what that looks like from above:

At first glance, it's the kind of large-scale development that looks as if it may not work. It looks like it could be the kind of project that sterilizes a fine-grained urban neighborhood. But get closer, and things start to look a little different.

The true test is seeing how it performs at the scale of a pedestrian. And I found this walking tour helpful in understanding what that might feel like. If you spend a few minutes watching it, or even just scanning through it, you'll see that the area looks active and busy, even at night.

Now, I've never visited this project, or Chengdu for that matter, but I suspect that the way to think about this project is not as one giant complex, but as a giant public space flanked by buildings. In other words, it's not that the complex is enormous, it's that the public spaces are enormous.

Jiakun is quoted as saying this:

“I always aspire to be like water,” says Liu, “to permeate through a place without carrying a fixed form of my own and to seep into the local environment and the site itself. Over time, the water gradually solidifies, transforming into architecture, and perhaps even into the highest form of human spiritual creation. Yet it still retains all the qualities of that place, both good and bad.”

The West Village seems to be a testament to this approach. He aspired to not interrupt the flows of the existing environment, and perhaps that's why it works so well. Or at least, that's what it looks like on YouTube.

Photos by Qian Shen Photography

Last year, the Feds lowered immigration targets in response to Canadians getting grouchy about the number people entering the country. This is expected to be felt starting this year. RBC estimates that Canada's overall population will shrink by about 0.2% this year and next, before returning to positive growth in 2027 (albeit at a lower rate).

That said, the data we have at our disposal today is backward looking and for the 12 months ending on July 1, 2024, Canada continued to see impressive population growth. Looking at the Greater Golden Horseshoe specifically, it grew by about 382,000 people. The 2023 figure was also revised upward from 340,000 to 367,000.

Here's a table from TMU's Centre for Urban Research and Land Development:

Nearly three-quarters of this growth was concentrated in the Greater Toronto Area, and about three-quarters of this growth was concentrated in Toronto and Peel at 143,000 and 70,000 people, respectively. These are big numbers, especially during a period of dramatically fewer housing starts.

Of course, going forward, lower household formation should alleviate some of the pressures on our housing market. But zero population growth is not sustainable, not unless we want to end up like Japan with a demographic crisis. So there will be tremendous market pressures to return to positive growth.

At the same time, if we go back to RBC's insight report, it specifically says: "This [lower immigration levels] will help realign housing demand with supply — so long as homebuilding can be sustained near current levels." Yeah, that's not happening. Housing starts in the Toronto region have fallen off a cliff.

So I continue to feel like 2027 will mark an important turning point for our housing market. It could be the year when population growth broadly returns, when we've fully absorbed the supply from the last cycle, and when we suddenly realize we don't have nearly enough new housing. Or at least that's my view.

Cover photo by Richard Hong on Unsplash

Real estate development is a risky endeavor and so a big part of this business is managing those risks. There's planning risk, market risk, construction risk, bad-drawing risk, and the list goes on. But it's also important to keep in mind that the risks you worry about the most will invariably change throughout the course of each real estate cycle.

For example, early on my career, we worried a lot less about construction cost escalations. We'd plug in a 2-3% annual increase into the pro forma and then move on the next line item. Of course, during the pandemic, this is almost all we worried about. What's our exposure? Do we have enough of an allowance? How are our subcontractor contracts drafted?

This particular panic has subsided since then, but now there's new panic: closing risk. We've spoken about this before, but given the number of condominium completions expected this year, I think it's going to remain top of mind for at least another 18 months (in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area).

The simple point I'd like to make today is that it's important to worry about risks, but it's equally important to worry about the risks that don't seem like risks at all today, which is admittedly trickier. Because you just never know. It's hard, for instance, to predict exactly when your largest trading partner might suddenly start an arbitrary trade war.

But it can happen, as we've learned.

Cover photo by Tiomothy Swope on Unsplash

Trumps' tariffs are supposed to take effect today. Here's a quote from the Globe and Mail, published yesterday:

“Very importantly, tomorrow, tariffs, 25 per cent on Canada and 25 per cent on Mexico, and that will start. So, they’re gonna have to have a tariff,” Mr. Trump said.

But it's still not clear that he understands how these tariffs will work. Either that, or he's lying and trying to trick people. Because he continues to deny that tariffs represent a tax paid by US importers (and ultimately US consumers) on things coming from Canada and Mexico.

Here's another quote:

"It’s not going to be a cost to you [Americans], it’s going to be a cost to another country."

Yeah, that's not how they work:

When the US puts a tariff on an imported good, the cost of the tariff usually comes directly out of the bank account of an American buyer.

“It’s fair to call a tariff a tax because that’s exactly what it is,” said Erica York, a senior economist at the right-leaning Tax Foundation.

“There’s no way around it. It is a tax on people who buy things from foreign businesses,” she added.

In any event, in the real world, tariffs are bad. They're bad for everyone. So much so, that Warren Buffett recently described them in this way:

“Tariffs are actually, we’ve had a lot of experience with them. They’re an act of war, to some degree,” said Buffett, whose conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway has large businesses in insurance, railroads, manufacturing, energy and retail. He made the remarks in an interview with CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell for a new documentary on the late publisher of The Washington Post, Katharine Graham. “Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the tooth fairy doesn’t pay ’em!” Buffett said with a laugh. “And then what? You always have to ask that question in economics. You always say, ‘And then what?’”

So let's look at "and then what" when it comes to the automotive sector.

The auto sector is the largest component of trade across Canada, the US, and Mexico. It makes up 22% of all the goods and services the flow across our borders. And in 2023, we produced some 16 million cars together, which generally include parts and materials from all three countries. We're extremely integrated. The WSJ recently broke this down, over here, and if you look at something like pistons, you'll see that this component alone typically crosses a border about 6 times:

What this means is that if you start forcing US importers to pay a tariff on Canadian and Mexican goods, and then Canada and Mexico retaliate with the same (because we/they have to), the entire model breaks down, unless of course consumers are comfortable paying a lot more. Of course, most of you already knew this. Last year, $1.6 trillion worth of goods moved back and forth across the US, Canada, and Mexico. It would be better for all three of us if this number went up, and not down, this year.

Cover photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

Ski and snowboard resorts have people known as snow reporters. Their job is to get up at an ungodly hour, check out the snow, and then report on the conditions, so that would-be patrons can decide if they want to spend their time and money on it. The snow reporter at a resort called Sugarbush in Vermont is a young lady by the name of Lucy Welch (who in her official bio explains that she has, sadly, no relation to the "mighty Fruit Snack Empire").

On the morning of March 1 -- the day that JD Vance was trying to ski at Sugarbush -- she decided to courageously commandeer the resort's "platform" to deliver a message. Every snow report subscriber got her letter in their inbox (though I'm told it was quickly pulled from the resort's website). And since she has a great literary voice, she speaks eloquently about skiing and the mountains, and she delivers a crucial and timely message, I'm sharing it in full with all of you today.

It may have been pulled from Sugarbush's website, but this blog lives on a blockchain that cannot be censored and that is intended to act as permanent storage. Its mission is to preserve "humanity's most important data" and so I'd like to make sure that her actions and this letter do not get erased over time. Here it is:

Mar 1st, 2025, 6:49 AM: Today of all days, I would like to reflect on what Sugarbush means to me. This mountain has brought me endless days of joy, adventure, challenges, new experiences, beauty, community, and peace. I’ve found that nothing cures a racing mind quite like skiing through the trees and stopping to take a deep breath of that fresh forest air. The world around us might be a scary place, but these little moments of tranquility, moments I’ve been fortunate enough to enjoy as a direct result of my employment here, give me, and I’d guess you, too, a sense of strength and stability.

This fresh forest air, is, more specifically fresh National Forest air. Sugarbush operates on 1745 acres of the Green Mountain National Forest. Right now, National Forest lands and National Parks are under direct attack by the current Administration, who is swiftly terminating the positions of dedicated employees who devote their lives to protecting the land we love, and to protecting us while we are enjoying that land.

This Administration also neglects to address the danger, or even the existence of, climate change, the biggest threat to the future of our industry, and the skiing we all so much enjoy here. Burlington, VT is one of the fastest-warming cities in the country, and Vermont is the 9th fastest-warming state. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), a resource I use every day for snow reporting, is crucial in monitoring extreme weather events and informing public safety measures, and is also experiencing widespread layoffs and defunding at the hands of the Administration.

Sugarbush would not be Sugarbush without our wonderful community. Employees and patrons alike, we are made up of some of the most kind hearted, hardworking people I have ever met. Our community is rich with folks of all different orientations, ethnicities, and walks of life, who all contribute to make this place what it is. They all love Sugarbush because it is a place where they can come to move their bodies, to connect with the land, to challenge themselves, to build character, to nourish their souls with the gift of skiing.

Many of these people are part of the LGBTQI+ community. Many (well, that’s a stretch, we all know this is an incredibly white-washed industry) are people of color. Half are women. Many are veterans or adaptive skiers who, through Vermont Adaptive, are able to access snow sports in part thanks to federal grants through the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is also facing devastating cuts. Many of our beloved employees moved across the world through an exchange program on the J1 visa to help this resort run, and they are not US citizens. ALL of these groups are being targeted, undervalued, and disrespected by the current Administration.

The beauty of National Forest land, is that anyone and everyone is welcome to enjoy it. Anyone and everyone can buy a lift ticket. I also imagine it is incredibly difficult, and likely impossible, to say “No” to the Secret Service. I hope that, instead of faulting Sugarbush management or employees for “allowing this to happen”, you can direct your anger to the source — the Administration that, in my oh-so-humble opinion, is threatening our democracy, our livelihoods, our land.

I want to reiterate how much I admire and respect my fellow employees and managers — they work so hard to make this place operate, to keep you coming back and enjoying it and making lifelong memories. Many of them may feel the same way that I do, but their hands are tied, and for good reason. They have families to support, they have benefits and health insurance to receive, they face far greater and more binding pressure from Corporate. I am in a privileged position here, in that I work only seasonally, I do not rely on this job for health insurance or benefits, and hey, waking up at 4:30 AM isn’t exactly sustainable. Therefore, I am using my relative “platform” as snow reporter, to be disruptive — I don’t have a whole lot to lose. We are living in a really scary and really serious time. What we do or don’t do, matters. This whole shpiel probably won’t change a whole lot, and I can only assume that I will be fired, but at least this will do even just a smidge more than just shutting up and being a sheep.

I am really scared for our future. Acting like nothing is happening here feels way scarier than losing my job. I want to have kids one day, and I want to teach them to ski. The policies and ideals of the current Administration, however, are not conducive to either of these things, because, at least how things look now, I’d never be able to afford a good life for a child anyway, and snow will be a thing of Vermont history. So please, for the sake of our future shredders: Be Better Here. It has truly been a pleasure writing your morning snow reports — I hope this one sticks with you. With love, peace, and hope, Lucy Welch

Lucy, thank you for your bravery.

Cover photo by Joel & Jasmin Førestbird on Unsplash