One of the common criticisms of electric vehicles is that, because they generally require more carbon to make than gas cars, they aren't really "greener." Well, here's a chart from Bloomberg that looks at lifetime emissions per vehicle for both gas cars and EVs:

The orange bars represent carbon emitted during manufacturing and scrapping (i.e., the dismantling of the car and the safe disposal of the battery). These processes are carbon-intensive. But it's during the driving/fueling phase where EVs shine.

The above chart assumes a vehicle life of 200,000 kilometres. Over longer mileage periods, this chart of course looks even better. At the same time, companies are actively working to reduce the orange bars. Polestar is targeting a net-zero car by 2035.

Importantly, this isn't going to be done through offsets. It's being done by greening their supply chain, which they record on a blockchain for transparency and finality. Each and every car comes with a Life Cycle Assessment.

My current car is over 8 years old, and I remember thinking when I bought it that it would be the last gas car I ever owned. That's right.

Cover photo by Kenny Leys on Unsplash

Chart from Bloomberg

According to recent data from CMHC via the Globe and Mail, here's (at least part of) the housing situation in Vancouver and Toronto:

• Metro Vancouver has 4,919 newly built unsold homes on the market (including houses, duplexes, row houses, and condominiums).

• Of this total, 3,195 are unsold condominiums. All of these figures exclude homes that were sold but where the buyers failed to close.

• Across Metro Vancouver, 37% of the unsold condominium inventory is priced above $1 million.

• In the city of Vancouver proper, 81% of the unsold condominium inventory is above $1 million, with more than 14% priced above $3 million.

• In the Greater Toronto Area, there are only 701 newly built unsold units on the market, and in the city of Toronto, 61% of these are priced at or above $1 million.

Initially, the 701 figure seemed low to me, but the way I interpret this "unsold" metric is that it's strictly a best attempt at a moment-in-time snapshot of developer inventory in newly completed projects that have never been subject to a purchase agreement.

Missing from these figures are unsold homes currently under construction, and recently closed homes that have never been occupied and are now on the resale market or are simply sitting empty. Again, if a buyer failed to close, these homes would not show up in the CMHC figures.

It also doesn't include homes in the pre-sale phase. However, I think this supply is mostly irrelevant because if the developer doesn't get to construction then that inventory quickly disappears from the market. It's not sitting there needing to be absorbed (though we developers would love for it to be).

The Globe and Mail article talks about how there are over 40,000 housing units that have been approved in Metro Vancouver but have not yet proceeded to construction, and that "newly built condos in Vancouver are too pricey to sell." But the salient question is one of product-market fit: What housing do customers actually want, and can afford, today?

As we have talked about many times before on the blog, I think we need to view this moment in time as an opportunity to reset our housing markets. In other words, it's an opportunity to look at how we regulate and tax new housing, and at what and how we build, all with the goal of better serving the housing needs of Canadians.

My specific view is twofold: We need to cut the regulatory fat around delivering new homes, and we need to better optimize for medium-density housing.

In today's episode of "this social housing project in Paris looks better than most market-rate housing elsewhere," we're looking at a recently completed boarding house in the 17e by CQFD Architecture.

The project has 6 storeys, a total area of 690 m2, 19 units, and a hard cost budget that was approximately €2.6 million (excluding tax). At this number, their hard costs work out to ~€3,768 per m2, ~€350 per ft2, or ~C$563 per ft2. So this was not a cheap build. Here's what it looks like:

When I first saw the project, I thought the total area would be larger than it is. At 690 m2, it's basically the size of a multiplex project here in Toronto. Except here in Paris, they've gone vertical and they've managed to fit 19 studio apartments, plus amenity space.

All of this is possible when you consider the efficiency of each floor plate. The typical floor includes 4 apartments, one stair, one elevator, and a short corridor. Add in a second exit stair and all of this blows up.

Also interesting is the efficiency of the ground floor. There's an entrance hall, management office, bike room, recreation room, outdoor garden, and a teeny tiny garbage room ("local O.M." on the plan). As I understand it, this is all that's required for refuse because of how frequently it's picked up.

If this were in Toronto, we'd probably need a dozen bins, meaning that the bike room and/or recreation room would need to shrink down.

I love dissecting plans and dimensions from different cities because it shows you the invisible hand of building codes, planning policies, and cultural norms. We get accustomed to certain conventions and then we assume that it's simply the way that things must be done.

But the rules we have are simply the rules that somebody decided to create. As Steve Jobs once said, "Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you." This implies that everything can be questioned and ultimately changed when there's a better solution.

Photos from CQFD Architecture

Floor plans from Metalocus