Brigitte Shim (of Shim-Sutcliffe Architects) invited Gabriel Fain and I to the Daniels Faculty this morning (at the University of Toronto) to talk about Mackay Laneway House.

It was for a class on laneway housing and, as it turns out, some of the students had been using MLH as a case study. That's pretty cool, although the primary lesson is probably "don't build next to large trees."

Following the presentation, we had a good discussion about laneways, and it reminded me of some of the things that I believe to be true. More specifically, it reminded me of what I think will happen in the future:

• Bona Fide Streets: Laneways will become bona fide streets. Meaning, they'll get real names (most don't have one today) and they'll get serviced. Today, laneway suites are typically serviced via the main/existing house.

• Severable Lots: Laneway lots will become severable. Right now this is strongly discouraged, because the intent is to create new rental housing and not new for-sale housing.

• Market Inversion: Once these lots become severable, the market will then be able to decide which frontage is most valuable -- the current street side or the laneway side. Maybe some get split right down the middle (50/50) or maybe some get biased toward one frontage. Either way, I think it will become common for the laneway frontage to be more desirable given its intimate scale and pedestrian orientation.

• Mixed-Use: Non-residential uses will become allowed.

I have no idea when all of this might happen, but I believe it will happen. So I wanted to write it down publicly.

This morning I toured 1151 Queen East (here in Toronto). It is a new 47-suite apartment building that is being developed by Hullmark and that was designed by Superkül (the same architects as Junction House). It's not quite finished yet, but it is looking terrific. The interiors feel, to me, like Berlin meets classic Miami Beach (if you can picture whatever this means). So a big congrats to the entire team. I'm sure it will be well-loved once people start moving in this year.

At the same time, it's hard not to see small and beautiful infill projects like this and wonder, "why do we make it so difficult to build this kind of new housing? This is a 6-storey rental building that, according to Urban Toronto, was first proposed in 2018. It then had to go through the typical rezoning process, which, in this case, seems to have taken two years. Now we're in 2024. Uh, why?

We should be looking at this kind of infill housing and saying, "Yes! You should go ahead and build this right now. Let us help you with that." Instead, we erect barriers, which only force developers toward ever larger projects. If you're going to spend two years in rezoning, no matter the scale of the development, why not build 470 homes instead of 47? And this has only been exacerbated with higher interest rates, because now time costs you that much more.

I say all of this because this is an objectively great infill project. Our city would be a better place with a lot more of these.

I am not a transportation engineer, but sometimes I like to, you know, pretend. And lately, I've been thinking about how to better design the Toronto intersection of Dundas, Dupont, Annette, and Old Weston (which I touched on briefly over here). It's a weird 5-point intersection that is often cited as one of the most confusing in the city. And so there's a lot that could be done.

Here's what it looks like today:

The centerpiece is the Dundas-Dupont Traffic Island, which is actually a city-owned park. It's not the most generous green space, but the real problem with this park is that it's very much an island. There's really only one pedestrian access point -- its north end. For the most part, you need to be unlawful in your movements on and off it.

This is a fairly common occurrence in cities. The island is, almost certainly, a remnant space. It was never explicitly designed; it is just what was left over after they figured out how to connect all of these streets and negotiate the intersection's grade changes.

The other signal, that these are remnant spaces, is the paint markings on the street. Their main job is to tell cars where to go. But they're also unproductive spaces. Nobody is intended to actually occupy them. So what they really say is, "we have too much road and we didn't know what to do; so we just painted them."

If you watch the below video of Claire Weisz (founder of WXY Studio) explaining the work that she has done in New York City, you'll see remarkable similarities to what I'm talking about here. This sort of thing happens all the time, especially at messy intersections where multiple streets converge. The objective was to connect the streets and the rest became a byproduct.

But when properly designed, these spaces actually become better for everyone: drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. And this Toronto intersection strikes me as a perfect candidate. So if my local Councillor Gord Perks is reading this post, I would ask him to do what he can within the city to encourage this kind of positive change.

And not just here, but wherever there is a street that sucks.