Over the years, I have written a few times about the great balcony debate. It's a discussion that comes up time and time again as those of us in the building industry go through the process of designing new residential buildings. One the one hand there are the arguments that balconies don't really get used all that much and that they are bad for the environment (thermal bridging through the slabs). And on the other hand there's the argument that, regardless of whether or not they actually get used, they form an important part of the buying/renting decision. Usually the former is made by architects and engineers and the latter is made by sales and marketing teams.

Back in 2016, I remarked that I was starting to see more Juliet balconies across Toronto (could have been some sort of bias at work -- like when you're shopping for a new car and then all you can see is that new car). Regardless, there are countless examples of architects and developers omitting balconies and finding creative ways to connect inside and out. But given that this pandemic has forced us to reconsider and reallocate how we use space in our cities, it's probably worth revisiting the great balcony debate. Has COVID-19 changed how we view outdoor space? And if so, will it last?

I've decided to start with a Twitter survey (see above tweet) and then either do a long-form article or a series of posts on the topic. If you have any thoughts that you would like to share (ideally before I write), please leave a comment below or on Twitter.

This past weekend I was in a condo building here in Toronto with large signs in the elevator saying, "No Short-Term Rentals Including Airbnb Are Permitted. Trespassers Will be Prosecuted." It was the first time I had seen anything like this, but it immediately signaled to me that the building must be having a problem with short-term rentals. Why else would you deface the elevators? There are some buildings that allow short-term rentals, but most don't.

However, over the last few years we have started to see purpose-built short-term rental buildings. In some cases, existing apartments buildings were "converted", as was the case with Niido's two properties in Nashville and Orlando. Here tenants in the building can rent both unfurnished and furnished apartments and then rent them out on Airbnb up to a maximum of 180 days per year. To date, I think these are the only two properties to use the "Powered by Airbnb" moniker, but more are on the way.

The developer behind Niido -- Newgard Development Group -- recently launched a new Powered by Airbnb brand called, Natiivo. This one looks to be focused on for sale product, with two upcoming projects in Austin and Miami. Both projects will have hotel licenses in order to avoid any regulatory risk going forward. But this makes me wonder how materially different this model is from the condo-hotels we're already familiar with.

For landlords and developers, the goal is obviously to maximize rents and prices. Allowing (or explicitly encouraging) residents to rent out their place and earn some extra cash, should help with that. And given the way I started this post, we also know there's a desire to do this, particularly in places with strong tourist demand like in Nashville and Miami. But the reviews are mixed. Not everyone wants to live in a hotel. But then again, not everyone wants to co-live. To each their own.

I am still making my way through (and editing) my photos from Lisbon and Malaga. Here is one that I took from the Playa de La Malagueta. I also posted it to Twitter and Instagram and asked: Should we encourage the personalization and customization of outdoor spaces on multi-family buildings?

This building overlooks the beach and the Alboran Sea. If you look closely, you'll see that a number of the balconies have been modified to include different kinds of awnings and shade structures. And some look to have been converted to interior space.

A few of you seem to support this level of customization, provided that the overall design integrity of the building is maintained. And I would agree that in this particular instance, it seems to work, which is actually why I took the photo. It gives the facade life.

I recall seeing instances of this in Toronto, but generally speaking it's not encouraged or allowed. In condominiums, outdoor spaces attached to units are typically defined as "exclusive-use common elements."

The challenge, here, lies in the subjectivity of "maintaining the overall design intent of the building." I'm not sure how you codify that, unless you pre-design the options. Perhaps that's one way of doing it.