Archive for real estate

Step 1: Define Affordability

It’s hard to solve a problem without first identifying what it is.  Solving the “housing affordability crisis” is no exception.

What is meant when someone says there is an affordability problem?  Affordability of what? for whom?

Here are four common things that I think people mean when they talk about housing affordability (feel free to add more in the comments):

1. A lack of rental at prices that workers who earn $10 to $15/hr might be able to pay with 1/3 of their income.

2. A lack of housing options for people without jobs who survive on social assistance.

3. Challenging ownership options for middle income households (for argument’s sake lets define this as those earning $50K-$120K)

4. The inability of middle income earners to afford detached single family homes in their preferred location. (Personally, I want a 4 bedroom detached house across from the beach for less than $400K)

After defining the problem, we can then look at the causes and possible solutions.  Once solutions are tried, we’ll also be in a better position to know if they work.

Take definition number 1 above, the rental affordability issue for the $10-$15/hr worker. First, what can someone afford? Let’s say they make $24,000 before taxes, and $21,000 after taxes; using the 1/3-income-on-housing rule, such a person can afford $7000 per year on rent or just under $600 a month. Doesn’t sound like much in the city–but lots of people seem to get by.

According to CMHC, the average rental rate for a 1 bedroom apartment in Vancouver Metro Area is $964.   However, we should also note that the average rental rate for a 2 bedroom place in the CMA is $1237 –two friends each making $12/hr could rent it.

But maybe people don’t want a room-mate, or the person has a dependent such as a child.  Or maybe they want to live in Vancouver itself (not a suburb) where the average 2 bedroom unit goes for $1493 and 1 Bedroom for $1045?

What causes average 1 bedroom rents to exceed $1000/month and 2 bedrooms to reach nearly $1500/month ?

Answer: Demand for rental housing exceeds supply.  This is especially true in locations where you truly don’t need a car; these locales work great for lower income people who can’t afford one anyway.  But these places are now also in demand from middle and higher income renters who enjoy the amenities at their doorsteps and would rather walk, bike or take transit than drive. Whenever a rental unit becomes available, a landlord can push the rents knowing lots of middle and upper income people desperately want to live in the area.

Solution: More supply.  And not just more supply anywhere in the city or metro area (although this will help a bit).  More supply is needed where people want to live–walkable, urban areas. Note: this could mean adding density in existing neighbourhoods; but it could also mean building new urban spaces at new transit stops in traditionally non-residential or lower density areas.

New supply could also mean smaller units, which then rent for less per month than larger ones.

Also note that new apartments (whether in Condo buildings or purpose-built) also tend to draw the middle and higher income renters out of the older stock–they often want the latest in modern appliances, nicer views, etc. and can afford to pay more if this is available.

How will we know that more supply is helping affordability: rental vacancy rates will stabilize or go up slightly; rental rates in older product will stabilize or go down (give some of the demand a nicer alternative and they’ll remove themselves from the demand pool for lower-priced, older suites).  Note that in a city with strong in-migration, it could take a lot of supply to notice a difference.


This was one example of what happens when we define Housing Affordability. We can then pick apart the causes and start to see a path toward improving the situation.  These same steps work for the other definitions (other than maybe #4).

The question of housing affordability is multifaceted.  The term means different things to different people and groups.  Any group claiming to be trying to solve affordability needs to define what they mean by it.  This way successes can better be measured, and proposed solutions be better explained to the general public and other interested stakeholders.

What does the term “housing affordability” mean to you?

Housing affordability sensationalism–enough already!

It has come to this. Every time some bank or other organization releases a new study about housing affordability in various cities I want to scream. Usually, the press release and all media stories have some sensational headline like “Vancouver 2nd most unaffordable city in the world.” As if. Those of you living in San Francisco, New York or London feel free to post in the comments.

What virtually all of these studies do is look at median or average prices of detached bungalows (moderate houses on their own lots) compared to the median or average income. This metric worked okay in the 20th century in most cities when bungalows on modest lots were the first homes of young families.  It is becoming increasingly meaningless in the 21st century. Here’s why.

1. Average and median home prices are being driven up by the larger, mature demographic (think those over 50) who have equity and are now trading homes. Some are buying a nicer location, some are downsizing to a penthouse condo. Everyone has their own reason. Regardless, they are not taking out a $1 million mortgage on their $80,000 salary.

Average prices are also being driven up in some cities, like Vancouver, by an increase in “Luxury Market” sales.  Over 700 homes priced at over $3 Million sold in Vancouver in 2011, nearly doubling the previous record of 375.

This luxury product is not about homes for younger families. Therefore, we should stop including it in analysis of housing market affordability for young families. Bob Rennie argued this in a talk last year. With help from Urban Futures, he noted that if you removed the top 20% of sales from analysis, pricing and affordability had not changed much in Metro Vancouver in recent years.  Suburban developers tell me pricing has been quite flat for some time.

2. With number one said, we can still see that demand today is strong and growing in walkable, mature cities and neighbourhoods; the detached houses are often in highest demand (even when more modest price strata-homes exist).  Because you can’t make more detached homes on lots in these mature areas, demand exceeds supply for this type of product.  This drives up the average and median price of even fixer-uper, non-luxury product; increasingly only those trading an existing home or coming in with cash can purchase them.  Families are buying in these neighbourhoods, but they are typically not first-time buyers; they have above average incomes and often equity from a condo or suburban home.

3. Points one and two above illustrate that detached bungalows are no longer typical first-time buyer product. When individuals, couples or families buy their first home in larger Canadian cities (and many cities around the world), increasingly it is more likely to be a townhouse or a condo. According to Realnet, In the Greater Toronto Area, 62% of homes sold in 2011 were high rise condos. And from watching House Hunters on HGTV this is also happening in many US cities as well.

Therefore a statement like “Vancouver 2nd most unaffordable city” is not that helpful if we are concerned about the “affordability” of buying a decent home for young families. Measuring something that is not first time buyer product against the incomes of first time buyers is comparing apples to Yugos.

If we are truly interested in understanding the ability of individuals with average incomes to buy a home in the higher priced, metro areas, then at minimum look at strata-titled attached homes (rowhouses and condos) instead of detached homes. Ideally you also remove the product coveted by the multi-millionaire club from the analysis.  Suddenly the income needed to get into the market looks more familiar to most of us — $50,000 for Metro Vancouver, $38,000 in Greater Toronto according to this study.

Flashy headlines about Vancouver and other cities being unaffordable get the publisher of the reports and newspaper articles attention–this is why they publish them.  Also it’s much easier to calculate median price and median income, and harder to do real housing market analysis.

What worries me is that politicians, policy makers and lobby groups are using this mis-information.  I fear for the results.  So banks and others, please move your thinking into the 21st century!


The Heights: Anatomy of a Skyscraper (Book Review)


Kate Ascher, The Heights: Anatomy of a Skyscraper (New York: Penguin Press, 2011)

Skyscrapers are a vital component of modern cites.  They allow tens of thousands of people to work in close proximity, allowing them to share ideas.  Tall residential buildings have also become important to supporting vibrant 24 X 7 downtowns, keeping thousands in close proximity to downtown amenities after the workforce has gone home.

Anyone interested in understanding the modern city would benefit from reading Kate Ascher’s masterful tribute to the skyscraper.

Ascher inter-weaves detailed technical descriptions of building components with a overarching narrative covering the relationship between skyscrapers and broader human history and the history of science.  The beautiful illustrations and photographs assist in the visual appeal of this book that would proudly sit atop any coffee table.  Her descriptions of the technology, materials, mechanical  systems and engineering challenges involved in constructing tall buildings are fascinating and highly readable to a non-technical reader (such as me).  Yet, I suspect those with an engineering or construction background would find the descriptions equally compelling.

This book offers something for almost everyone, whether your interest lies in engineering, construction, real estate or cities.  As someone with a Ph.D. in history (although I work in the real estate investment industry), I was particularly drawn to Ascher’s discussion of the relationship between the economy, history of capitalism, history of technology and skyscraper evolution.

The industrial revolution and more specifically the mass-production of steel made the skyscraper revolution possible.

…the development of the internal steel skeleton permitted larger windows and more usable floor area…by the turn of the [19th] century, steel had replaced cast iron as the backbone of choice for new skyscrapers, and buildings of 15 to 20 stories [sic] had been completed in both New York and Chicago

The booming US economy from the 1880s through to 1929 allowed for a race to the sky that did not occur elsewhere, and New York and Chicago were the preeminent cities for this race..  Ascher describes how booming corporations each attempted to out-do each other in constructing ever taller buildings.  In 1930 there were vrtually no buildings with skyscraper technology outside of the USA.  This was an American phenomenon.

It was not until the post-world-war-two expansion in the 1950s and 1960s that the skyscraper race to the top began again (although the style was the plain, modernist rather than the ornate art deco of the 1930s notes Ascher). And this time, it was slightly more global with Europe joining in.

Ascher correctly notes that the tallest buildings of an era tend to begin just before an economic downturn. The twin World Trade Centre towers of New York began construction in 1972.  Although Ascher avoids much non-technical (and therefore political) discussion of these buildings, looking back as an historian, I might argue that they represented the culmination of America’s 20th century economic expansion—the end of an era.

When the skyscraper race began again, in the 1990s, Ascher notes it became an Asian era.  Here’s some perspective she offers on the Asian rise: before 1980, 85% of buildings over 500 feet high (150 metres) were in North America.  By 2008 72% of skyscrapers were outside of North America.

The Asian version has tended to be mixed use.  Whereas in North America skyscrapers tended to offer only office and occasionally residential, in Asia developers combine retail, residential and even hotels within a single building. The new Burj Khalifa in Dubai is presented as the prime example of this urban lifestyle building where people live, work and play.

Ascher covers an impressive range of subjects and knowledge in this book from history to civil, mechanical and environmental engineering. Her background is a Ph.D. in government from the London School of Economics followed up with time in the real estate and consulting sectors. Specialists in any of the myriad topics she covers will no doubt find the occasional fact or interpretation to quibble with, as I did. But these do not detract from what the book offers–a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary examination of skyscrapers and their relationship to economic and urban history.

Ascher ends with a good question: what would Jane Jacobs think of cites in which a large percentage of the population lives in skyscrapers?  Do they allow for enough informal interaction that Jacobs believed helps to build community?

Maybe these are good questions for the TED prize initiative around Cities 2.0. How to we better build communities in the sky?

Urban Housing Prices Reveal Urban Shift


A new survey in the United States revealed that only 12% of future home buyers wanted to purchase a home in the suburban-fringe. A decade ago, it is quite possible that the number would have been reversed with over 80% wanting a large suburban home.  Certainly, house prices were more expensive on a per square foot basis than in mature urban markets.

We have more than survey evidence of what people say.  You can see it in the housing prices–what they are doing (where they are putting their money).

In the US, housing prices in higher density, older urban areas have begun to rise. From the New York Times

Today, the most expensive housing is in the high-density, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods of the center city and inner suburbs. Some of the most expensive neighborhoods in their metropolitan areas are Capitol Hill in Seattle; Virginia Highland in Atlanta; German Village in Columbus, Ohio, and Logan Circle in Washington. Considered slums as recently as 30 years ago, they have been transformed

Meanwhile in some suburban fringe locations it is hard to give away a McMansion–or they are being used as low-cost (!) student housing.

In Canada, you could see the shift in urban vs suburban housing prices beginning in about 2003.  Urban prices began to rise more quickly than suburban ones.  What began as a trickle of people choosing a more urban lifestyle has become a flood, with various consequences and responses from residents, city halls and builders.

In Toronto there has been a massive push to add housing supply downtown–in the form of condominiums (there are more under construction in Toronto than anywhere else in the world).  This actually improved affordability for switching from rental to ownership in Toronto between 2006 and 2010.

In Vancouver city itself (the urban core)  the most significant evidence comes in the pricing of ground oriented housing.  In neighbourhoods with good transit, walkable and close to downtown prices have tripled (that is risen 200%) for detached homes in about 7 years.  Officially, the stats for East Vancouver say prices are up 41% in 5 years and on the west side 71% in 5 years.  Meanwhile in the suburbs, prices are up only 14% in 5 years.

In Calgary, a city that once sold itself on offering less-expensive, suburban-style housing than Vancouver or Toronto now promotes its urban-ness.  Condos are sprouting up on the fringe of downtown, particularly in the Beltline and areas immediately south.  And money is being pumped into museums and the arts (it is cowboy country no more).

The challenge going forward for all cities in North America will likely be to ensure enough amenities (parks and recreation) and services (including transit) are available to a much larger population than a given geography has ever held before.

Ordinary working people own financial districts

The Occupy Wall Street movement is spreading to financial districts across North America and the world.  Seems an appropriate time to think about who actually owns and profits from that real estate.

Union pension funds are the owners of many office towers in Canada’s financial districts

Increasingly Canadian union pension funds are buying up US office towers too. US pension funds are also big owners of real estate.

Gatherings and protests can sometimes become destructive, often against the original organizers vision. We’ve all seen the TV footage or been first hand eye witnesses when a peaceful gathering turns into something else.

Various unions are now endorsing the “Occupy” movement.

They just might want to be extra vigilant to make sure no one trashes their pension fund’s office buildings or those belonging to the pensions of fellow unions from across the country or around the world.

The banks are merely tenants–renters.  A lot of hard working ordinary people are the actual owners of the real estate via their union pension plans.

Time for micro-lots?

When they couldn’t sell their large lots for mansions in the 1910s, early real estate land developers in Vancouver’s Grandview “suburb” split them into smaller lots, and sold them to workers to build their own homes.  

Today, these lots are smaller than the legal norm in Vancouver of 33’ X 122’.  Many are 25 X 90.  Some are 30 X 60; there may even be some smaller ones.  Most have homes on them larger than what would be allowed today—they nearly fill the lot, offering only a tiny back yard or patio.  But over the decades these houses on small lots have allowed people who otherwise couldn’t afford a home in the area to enter the housing market (my husband and I included).   They also helped create the higher density of people per sq. mile that supports the vibrant retail and restaurant scene on nearby Commercial Drive.

You would have a hard time getting City Hall to approve sub-dividing properties into lots this small today (assuming you could assemble a few bigger ones, and then re-divide them). 

But maybe smaller lots are what we need, with houses that nearly fill them—and not just in Vancouver.  I suspect similar issues exist in the older neighbourhoods of other North American cities where there is growing demand to live there and prices are rising because it`s hard to increase supply.

Small homes on small lots also suit the lifestyle preferences of many people today, including the generation x and y urban “workforce” who are not that interested in keeping up a yard.  They’d love their own outdoor space, but maybe more of a patio that requires minimal maintenance. They might prefer to go to a larger park when they want grass. 

This attitude toward spending less time on home maintenance is partially what’s driving the condo-living boom.  But not everyone who doesn’t really enjoy yard work wants to live more than 1 storey off the ground; what options do they have if they cannot afford a detached single family home?  Even those in townhouses (or condo towers) sometimes find strata rules and councils frustrating and even intrusive.

Solution:  why not detached homes on very small lots?  For example, what about having 1000-1200 square feet of house, on a 33’ X 40 foot lot—likely in 2.5 storeys. There’d be enough outside space for small patio, or tiny garden or yard, whatever the home owner wanted.  Basically it would be a small townhouse, but “fee simple” –you own the land and the house–and you could get three such properties on corner lots where today currently one house stands.  This adds density, which is great for amenities, keeps in the low-rise character of an area, and adds housing that is more affordable than a single house or duplex on a lot.

In the 1910s, somehow lot owners were able to subdivide lots to create workforce housing.  Creativity came into play when the mansion-sized lots proved to be too expensive for ordinary folks.  Although there seem to be many willing to pay over $1,000,000 for a home in East Vancouver, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t look to what worked in the past to create less expensive housing that more people want and can afford.

So tell me, where do you know of where you can buy new homes on tiny lots with no strata council?

I’ve heard of one such project in Victoria, and that it has been very popular with the strata-fatigued, but would love to learn more about it and other examples.

Will downsizing boomers change urban housing for the better?

As the baby boomers exit the single-family housing market in cities, what will happen to prices and neighbourhoods?

Journalist Gary Mason offers a few thoughts in today’s Globe and Mail:

In a 2008 paper co-written with Sung Ho Ryu, Prof. Dowell Myers said communities in the United States face a historic tipping point. The ratio of seniors to working-age residents is expected to grow by roughly 30 per cent in each of the next two decades, the pair calculated….

Those wanting to enter the market in the coming years may not have the money to buy single-family detached homes, either. Thus the dilemma: Who will boomers sell to when they’re ready to move into some swank condo downtown or on a golf course somewhere?

This could actually be good news for young people. An oversupply of homes generally means prices fall. But as home values decline, so will home equity, diminishing retirement savings in the process. Home equity is the single largest component of net wealth for most people.

Today, Prof. Myers [is] anticipating another recession in the latter half of this decade, and that’s when the crisis he’s predicting will reveal itself. “Recoveries are usually fuelled by people who postponed buying a home who are now surging into the market. I just don’t see there being enough buyers for all those selling. I think this is going to be bad for house prices, public finance and global treasuries.”

Tsur Somerville, [of UBC Sauder School of Business], isn’t as pessimistic as Prof. Myers.

“I know it’s one of those theories where the numbers add up and the underlying fundamentals are correct, but I think in Canada, at least, it’s too early to say how it’s going to play out. I think immigration is the key. … The places that need to worry are those cities with an aging profile that don’t have big net immigration numbers and are seeing their young move to other places,” said Prof. Somerville. “I think there are some centres that fit that description that maybe should be worried. But there’s lots of ways this could play out yet.”

I agree that some suburbs may see values fall as younger generations are less interested in–or able to afford–living in more isolated areas that require a long automotive commute to major employment centers.  This could really hit some US metro areas.

But in cities where boomers own much of the older single-family housing closer to employment centers, or along transit lines, a wave of selling combined with rezoning to higher density use might actually accelerate a shift toward more sustainable urban living.  For example, an older rancher could become two or more homes as it is replaced by a duplex or by two detached homes–or two duplexes–on a subdivided lot.

Such a shift would potentially keep housing prices in check for younger generations–four homes in the same space as one.  It would also increase density, which allows for more retail, service and even transit amenities.  And finally, such a shift might actually help maintain property values for the aging boomer since the land value would reflect a “higher and better use” on the site.

Your thoughts?

Are global house prices overvalued?

A couple weeks ago the Economist published an article, “Global House Prices: Floor to Ceiling“.

In it, they argued presented a chart suggesting that most countries’ housing markets were “overvalued.”  This whole article didn’t work for me.

The criteria they used to determine what countries were overvalued, and by how much, was the long-term average rent versus the average ownership price.  A big change in ownership price, versus rental rates, means overvalued.

The most overvalued places include Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore.

But these are places that are substantially urban, and with strong demand from regional and global people to move there.  Hong Kong is, for all intents and purposes, a city-state as is Singapore.  Australia is a desert island with a few major metropolis around the outside–such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane–which have been popular migration points for native-born as well as immigrants.

The more people that want to live in a city, and in its cool, hip urban core, the more prices will go up.  It’s a supply-demand issue.  Overvalued would suggest that either demand is expected to wane, or somehow supply will catch up.  But in big cities there is no more land to develop close to the big employment nodes and the core area (the essence of the city), so supply can’t really catch up.

Saying a country’s housing market is overvalued, therefore, is to suggest that people will stop migrating to the major cities.

I don’t see that happening in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore or Canada.  Do you?

It is also interesting that the Economist data also suggests Japan’s housing market is undervalued, and there is a country with an aging and declining population that is not attracting global migrants.  Personally, I’m not going to run out and buy property in Japan.

 Now tweeting on cities

Solving the rental housing shortage and price challenge

Many dynamic cities throughout North America have a housing challenge.  Prices are high, whether people wish to rent or own.  In some neighbourhoods escalating prices may be pushing out people who have lived in the community for years, even helped to build it into a great place that is now desirable. Many communities may also be becoming less economically diverse as the minimum income needed to move in may be well above the regional average.

While some suggest trying to forbid any redevelopment or even substantial renovations to homes and buildings (that is, stopping gentrification), I don’t think this is a solution.  Communities are like organic entities. They grow, evolve and change constantly.  Trying to hold them back would be like magically making your cute 3 year old stay in her cute state forever–very quickly she would stop growing and developing, which is actually the very thing that makes her interesting and cute at any one stage.

What can help keep neighbourhoods more economically diverse, with housing for everyone, is greater density and greater flexibility of housing types in those communities where prices are escalating fast (that is, where demand to live there exceeds supply).

In the Vancouver metro area, and in many cities across Canada (and the world) people are starting to increase the value they place on: short commutes, walkable communities, transit-oriented communities, and living a more sustainable lifestyle (less auto use, for example).  If you want a healthier planet and environment, this is a good thing.  But it has the consequence of higher housing prices.

 In my view, the challenge in all of these cities is and will be two fold:

First, get people in existing walkable,’hoods with great transit to accept greater density: more neighbours. This can be what I’ve called “stealth” density (homes you don’t really see from the street) like laneway houses, basement suites, front-back duplexes, etc. It can, of course, also be apartment towers which are appropriate in certain places, or condos/apts over storefronts on busy streets.  If the supply of housing can increase, it will help prevent prices from rising further and maybe help them come down in a few places. And the city will also have to welcome proposals to provide more housing through a variety of creative approaches including reducing parking requirements for new homes in walkable, transit-oriented places.

 Second, steps need to happen to convert suburban areas that are currently more auto-centered into more walkable areas with amenities nearby.  This will also mean existing residents in these places accepting more density and even some new commercial uses in their areas.  You don’t get the customers for successful organic grocers, coffee bars, clothing stores, etc. without a lot of people living nearby, but increasingly you don’t get people wanting to live nearby without the grocers and cafes.  

 And housing of any type is helpful in making rental accommodations more affordable to those of modest means.  We need more purpose-built rental, more owner-occupied homes, more co-ops, more co-housing projects, more subsidized housing plans, and anything creative in between.  This will help push down prices, or at least stop their escalation in places with growing populations or growing demands.

Sometimes I hear renters’ rights groups protesting a city planning department giving a concession to a luxury rental project, claiming it doesn’t help the poor and middle income.  It does.  Any new housing that can pull people with high incomes out of existing lower-cost rental will help make room in a lower priced building for someone else who can’t afford the luxury options.

If we want lower cost housing, or at least housing prices to stop escalating, we need more of it–where people want to live.

Housing still a good investment in some US cities

It seems like everyday there is a headline about the Death of the American dream, or how home ownership is not worth it anymore.  I disagree.   Moreover, I predict that owning a home in many US cities over the next 20 years will be a worthwhile investment, if done right.

Here’s why:

1. Population growth.  The US population continues to grow via births as well as immigration.   More people = more demand for housing–but not just anything, anywhere.

2. Certain metros will have flourishing economies, attracting a disproportionate share of the growing population.  Cities on both coasts, plus certain interior cities like Chicago I expect to be particularly prominent.  Owning a home in many areas of these metros will be a solid if not excellent investment over a 10-20 year horizon.

3. Location will matter within these more dynamic metros.  Moving around a metro by private automobile will get more expensive as oil prices rise and congestion results in more toll roads and parking costs downtown increase.  Moreover, people are increasingly placing a value on their time and don’t wish to commute 2 hours per day.  Therefore, homes close to–or in–major employment, entertainment and shopping nodes will rise in value as will those attached to clean, efficient rapid transit lines.  These homes are worth owning, or developing.  Many come with geographic constraints (limited supply, growing demand which means higher prices).

4. Over time, city, country and metro governments will recognize the need to offer more housing in close proximity to employment and shopping/entertainment nodes.  That is, they’ll look to undo the 1950s suburban model of separating everything.  They’ll change zoning to allow for new urban nodes that include office buildings, entertainment space, restaurants and retail to spring up closer to homes (or even integrated with residential buildings).  Zoning will also allow for multifamily homes (whether row houses, condo towers or apartments) to be built near existing urban nodes.

Property values will go up as a result either because your home is now closer to jobs or transit, or because the land is now more valuable as one could build townhouses or apartments/condominiums on it (housing more people).

The key to a good investment is to buy for the right reason.  For example, buying a house today near transit or near an employment node, raising your family in it, making all your mortgage payments (and not borrowing the equity back), and looking to sell in 15-20 years will result in a great retirement bonus–if you picked the right city and right location.

And, when you think about it, wasn’t this the essence of the American Dream way back: work hard, buy a house, pay it down, then sell at the end to retire or help your kids.  This is true home ownership.  What was going on over the past decade was about speculation and gambling more than home ownership.

jordan 12 cherry jordan 12 cherry jordan 12 cherry jordan 12 flu game jordan 12 flu game jordan 12 flu game jordan 12 french jordan 12 french jordan 12 french jordan 12 gym jordan 12 gym jordan 12 gym jordan 12 ovo jordan 12 ovo jordan 12 ovo jordan 12 unc jordan 12 unc jordan 12 unc jordan 12 wings jordan 12 wings jordan 12 wings