Last week, Sierra Communities (developer) and my friend Gabriel Fain (architect of Mackay Laneway House fame) submitted the above development proposal for 2760 Dundas Street West in the Junction. It is a beautiful proposal. So not surprisingly, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Here are the first batch of comments from Urban Toronto:

It also happens to be one block west of our Junction House project, so I definitely would have been annoyed if somebody proposed something ugly here. I am 99.9% biased, but I think the Junction has some of the best new mid-rise buildings in the city. Presumably, this is what "Mrgeosim" was getting at with their comment about "the number of good proposals for this neighbourhood."

But here's the thing. This is a relatively small proposal. It's a 6-storey mid-rise building with 28 new homes on top of a tiny 482 square meter site (16m frontage). This makes it a challenging new development to execute on. So the fact that this is required to go through the typical rezoning and site plan processes is, in my opinion, a painful problem.

We should be doing everything we can to encourage these kinds of new housing developments all across the city. And that necessarily means removing as many barriers as possible. A pair of development applications and a few community meetings may seem benign, but they're not. They add time and real costs that then need to be passed onto future residents.

There is also a very valid question around what kind of development charges (or impact fees) we should be levying on projects of this scale. If you want to build a laneway suite in the City of Toronto, you can have the development charges deferred and eventually forgiven. Why? Because we want more rental housing and we have arguably recognized that it's important for project feasibility.

Should the same apply if you're building 2 new homes, or perhaps 28 new homes? At what point should the "impacts" kick in and the fees be levied? And might there be an argument that adding many new homes on top of small 482 square meter parcels is actually an incredibly efficient way of using existing public infrastructure? I think so.

Congratulations to the team on a beautiful proposal! I'm looking forward to this being our neighbor.

Image: Gabriel Fain Architects

We were having pizza at Davanza's the other night and I started flipping through one of those real estate magazines that you find scattered around places like Park City.

Now, more often than not, when I come across a house listed for tens of millions of dollars, I usually look at it and think to myself, "okay, I know this is a really expensive home and it is likely that someone will want to buy it, but I objectively don't like it."

However, as I was flipping through the magazine, I came across this listing and instead thought, "hey, this is actually a really cool house."

Designed by Wallace Cunningham, the 8,000 sf home features a cascading roof line that looks like an "S" in plan. (It also seems like all of the interior spaces were laid out in service of this plan design, which, depending on your own architectural proclivities, could be considered either a perfectly fine thing or an arbitrary thing.)

It's an interesting house. So here's a video tour.

We have been speaking about Nabr and the productization of housing for the last year (and, more broadly, about prefabricated housing for probably as long as this blog has existed). And now it is possible to go on to Nabr's website and reserve a new home in their San Jose project. Here's what that looks like:

What is immediately clear is that this is an obvious improvement over the way that new homes are typically purchased. The pricing is transparent. You can easily see the floor plan and features of each home. And if you'd like to reserve one, you can go ahead and do that right away for $1,000:

You can also specify whether or not you're interested in Nabr's lease-to-purchase program (known as LEAP). More information on that can be found, over here.

But the exciting question remains whether thinking about and executing on this new housing as a product, rather than as an individual project, will ultimately bring greater cost efficiencies and savings. In other words: can it make housing more affordable?

Today, the base pricing for SoFA One looks something like this:

• Home 1002: $1,415,000, ~1080 sf (excluding exterior space), $1,310 psf

• Home 1003: $2,144,000, ~1547 sf (excluding exterior space), $1,386 psf

• Home 1108: $938,000, ~795 sf (excluding exterior space), $1,180 psf

These are just the first 3 homes that showed up for me when I opened the website. And while I'm not intimately familiar with the San Jose housing market, Realtor tells me that the median sold price is $1.2 million and that the median list price per square foot is about $766.

Though not really an apples-to-apples comparison, this suggests to me that the above pricing may not be as affordable as some people were hoping for. However, it is more or less where I figured pricing would need to be in order to make a high-rise project like this pencil.

Does this change over time with more product scale? I think it could.