One of the things that I have learned over the years from sitting on panel discussions about city building is that, if I talk about the challenges and economic realities of development, I will be less popular than if I just tell feel-good stories about urbanism and architecture. The latter is often what people want to hear. It's more exciting.

But to ignore the economic realities of the world is to ignore real solutions. And this, as I have talked about before, is one of the main qualms that I had with architecture school. Money, economics, and real estate matters were tertiary, if not entirely taboo. Just focus on the purity of design and everything else will resolve itself.

Now don't get me wrong, I love design. It is fundamental. But so are a bunch of other things, which is why I think this article, by Benjamin Schneider, hits the nail on the head. It is specifically a review of a MoMA exhibit called New York, New Publics, but really the overarching message is this one here: "Enough with the feel-good architecture."

To tell a feel-good story within this framework, urban development projects must be edited and curated to cleanse them of these associations. Favored projects must somehow appear to transcend capitalism, NIMBYism, an anti-urban federal government, and the compromises inherent in the transformation of the built environment. Because this is impossible—except in the case of marginal beautification projects—the public is left with false expectations about how cities get built, making the hard stuff even harder to pull off.

City building always involves compromises. But the more we're upfront about what they are, the sooner we'll get to more optimal solutions.

One of the most important considerations for livability in a multi-family building is the elevators. And as someone who has lived in a condominium building for the last 10 years, I know firsthand that it can be frustrating when they aren't working properly. So this is obviously something that we pay a lot of attention to in our own projects.

The very general and crude rule of thumb is that you want at least 1 elevator for every 100 homes. For example, at Junction House, we have 151 suites and 2 elevators. So that means we have 1 elevator for every ~76 homes. At One Delisle, we have 371 suites and 4 elevators. So 1 for every ~93 homes. At the same time, I live in a building with 357 suites and 3 elevators (1 for every 119), and it works just fine.

But again, this is a very general rule of thumb. There are many other factors that can influence performance such as the number of levels in the building, the number of suites per floor, the number of below-grade parking levels, and so on. In my building, we have all above-grade parking, so I'm sure that impacts things.

If you have a building with a lot of below-grade parking, that will generally decrease performance all else being equal (i.e. increase weight times). Because now you have that many more stops, even if the number of homes remains constant above.

One common way to mitigate these impacts is to add a parking shuttle elevator. This is a dedicated elevator for just the parking levels, and it's something that you'll often see in office buildings. This helps service levels. It can also help the overall building efficiency (saleable area/gross construction area) by potentially eliminating the need for another elevator shaft in the above-grade levels.

But the trade-off is that you now need to transfer elevators, usually at the ground floor. Some people don't mind this and think it helps with building security. If someone sneaks into the garage, there's another obstacle to getting up into the residential floors. But it does mean that if you're coming home with groceries in your hands, you need to take 2 elevators.

I'd be curious to hear from all of you what you think about parking shuttle elevators in residential buildings. Because I suspect that as building heights increase and as parking ratios continue to decline, parking shuttle elevators will likely become more common in cities like Toronto. Let me know in the comments below.

Disclaimer: I am not an elevator consultant! I am telling you just what I have learned over the years from speaking with actual professionals. So I recommend you speak with one before making any important elevator decisions on your own projects.

Photo by Edwin Chen on Unsplash

Yesterday evening I visited the future of Toronto's neighborhoods. It is located at 367 Howland Avenue. And it takes the form of 10 homes on a lot that previously used to house only 1. Developed by Green Street Flats and designed by Craig Race Architecture, it is a near perfect example of what Toronto hopes to achieve with its new multiplex policies. As Craig put it last night, "we found the missing middle!"

Now to be fair, this is a double lot, measuring about 10m wide in total. And so this is twice the size of what the new policies now allow on a single lot -- a fourplex plus a laneway suite or garden suite (4+1). But it is still generally consistent with what you could do today if you had two contiguous lots.

That said, this project predates the new multiplex policies, meaning it required a long list of zoning variances and it led to an inevitable fight with the neighbors. This small project required an 8-day contested hearing before it was granted approval! Start to finish, Howland took over 3 years.

That is ridiculous and so I think all of us should view the new multiplex policies as meaningful progress in our city. What was once contentious and a huge pain is now permissible as-of-right. Isn't it funny how rules and perspectives change? "No, you can't do this! Okay, now you can. Please do a lot of it." So for the purposes of this post, let's talk about Howland as if it were built on an as-of-right basis and you could do the same on your own lot if you were so inclined.

From a design perspective, the homes are organized as follows:

There's a full-floor basement suite, a full-floor suite on the main level, two back-to-back two-storey upper suites, and then a laneway suite at the back. One reason for this configuration is that it means you never have to walk up more than one flight of stairs to get to your main living space. This was one of the design criteria and I think it works very well. Here's an example of what this looks like (this is a suite #3):

For this particular site, the entrance to suite #4 is at the back of the fourplex and accessed via an adjacent laneway. But for the "inboard" fourplex, each suite is accessed via the main street. Once again, I think this all works very well. I just wonder if there could be an opportunity to shave additional costs by moving some of the circulation outside (kind of like this). I guess it would depend on the width of the lot.

Of course, the big question remains: Do projects of this scale actually make any money? Because if they don't, then people aren't going to continue building them. Though, I would say there are two ways to think about underwriting a project like this.

The first is from a 100% investment standpoint: build 5 homes, rent 5 homes, and then collect a reasonable risk-adjusted return. The second is a hybrid approach. Maybe it's build 5 homes, rent 4 homes, and live in the other one. In this case, the math is likely a bit different. It could just be about subsidizing your living expenses as opposed to generating a commensurate return.

But in both cases, we know that these are very skinny projects. You need to be extra careful with your costs. And from what I gleaned last night, 6 or more suites is a better underwriting starting point (compared to 5). We also know that these projects only pencil with CMHC financing. Period. Full stop. If CMHC financing were to go away or meaningfully change, so to do these missing middle projects.

So as we look toward the future of housing in Toronto's neighborhoods, we need to keep in mind that these projects happen very much on the margin (as does all development, but it's an even thinner line here). Meaning it remains to be seen whether these will happen at scale across the city, which is now the hope. It'll also be interesting to see if developers like Green Street don't scale up over time. I suspect they will.

Congratulations to Green Street Flats, Craig Race Architecture, and the rest of the team on helping to pioneer this new housing typology. It's a glimpse of the future and, judging by the turnout at last night's open house, Toronto is ready for it.