Over the past week I’ve had 2 separate people ask me my thoughts on the future of the condo market in Toronto. One of them was working on a University study and one of them was trying to figure out what (condo) property managers would look like in the future.
To be clear, the questions weren’t motivated by the typical “bubble” debate that the media loves to headline, rather these were questions about the long term future of condos in this city.
I haven’t written about this topic explicitly, so today I thought I would summarize my responses for the Architect This City community. There’s probably a touch of aspiration in the responses I gave, but it’s more or less what I’m thinking and what I believe has a good chance of happening over the next 10-20 years.
Here are some of my thoughts (not an exhaustive list):
Intensification is going to continue in Toronto and that is going to mean more condominiums and other types of multi-family dwellings. Rental apartments is the product type du jour right now within the real estate community.
As intensification continues, I think we’re going to see a tipping point in the near term with more families opting to have and raise children in condos in the city. Part of this will be driven by a desire to stay in the city (walkable communities), but part of it will also be driven by the economics (i.e. high price) of low-rise housing in the city.
As families begin to fill in condos (not just young single professionals and empty nesters), we’ll see developers and cities respond with more family friendly buildings, amenities, and program choices. This could mean anything from children’s play spaces within buildings to redesigned public spaces and parks.
Over the past week I’ve had 2 separate people ask me my thoughts on the future of the condo market in Toronto. One of them was working on a University study and one of them was trying to figure out what (condo) property managers would look like in the future.
To be clear, the questions weren’t motivated by the typical “bubble” debate that the media loves to headline, rather these were questions about the long term future of condos in this city.
I haven’t written about this topic explicitly, so today I thought I would summarize my responses for the Architect This City community. There’s probably a touch of aspiration in the responses I gave, but it’s more or less what I’m thinking and what I believe has a good chance of happening over the next 10-20 years.
Here are some of my thoughts (not an exhaustive list):
Intensification is going to continue in Toronto and that is going to mean more condominiums and other types of multi-family dwellings. Rental apartments is the product type du jour right now within the real estate community.
As intensification continues, I think we’re going to see a tipping point in the near term with more families opting to have and raise children in condos in the city. Part of this will be driven by a desire to stay in the city (walkable communities), but part of it will also be driven by the economics (i.e. high price) of low-rise housing in the city.
As families begin to fill in condos (not just young single professionals and empty nesters), we’ll see developers and cities respond with more family friendly buildings, amenities, and program choices. This could mean anything from children’s play spaces within buildings to redesigned public spaces and parks.
In line with this shift, I think we’ll also see more sophisticated executions of “mixed-use.” Rather than just stacked uses (retail at the bottom, a few levels of office, and a residential condo tower above), developers and operators are going to start thinking about the ecosystem they are creating. (Related discussion in the comment section of this post.)
It’s probably a bit safe to predict that sustainability will become more important going forward. But I think that as more families and long-term end users opt for condos, that consumers will become more interested in building and energy performance. Technological advancement (both hardware and software) will also give this a boost.
Finally, and this applies somewhat to real estate in general, I believe that we’ll see a lot more openness and transparency all across the industry. There will be much better access to data and information. Similar to above, this will be aided by advances in technology and networks.
Now it’s your turn. What do you think of the above list? And what will the condo market — either in Toronto or in your city — look like in 10-20 years?
In line with this shift, I think we’ll also see more sophisticated executions of “mixed-use.” Rather than just stacked uses (retail at the bottom, a few levels of office, and a residential condo tower above), developers and operators are going to start thinking about the ecosystem they are creating. (Related discussion in the comment section of this post.)
It’s probably a bit safe to predict that sustainability will become more important going forward. But I think that as more families and long-term end users opt for condos, that consumers will become more interested in building and energy performance. Technological advancement (both hardware and software) will also give this a boost.
Finally, and this applies somewhat to real estate in general, I believe that we’ll see a lot more openness and transparency all across the industry. There will be much better access to data and information. Similar to above, this will be aided by advances in technology and networks.
Now it’s your turn. What do you think of the above list? And what will the condo market — either in Toronto or in your city — look like in 10-20 years?
I’ve written quite a bit about the advantages of a “rail + property” model when it comes to building public transit. It’s a model that works quite successfully in other parts of the world, such as in Hong Kong.
However, in North America the notion of land value recapture or of transit authorities acting as real estate developers is still very much in its infancy. We’re myopically focused on rail.
Which is why I said about 3 months ago that if the stations along the new Eglinton Crosstown LRT line in midtown Toronto became single storey and single purpose buildings, that we will have missed an enormous city building opportunity.
Since that post I had a number of conversations with the folks over at Metrolinx and I was delighted to learn that there were in fact plans to build additional density on top of the stations. And as of today they’ve gone completely public with that intention.
Metrolinx, with the help of Avison Young, has just issued a request for proposal (RFP) for 4 sites along Eglinton Avenue in the city. Two of them are at Keele Street, one of them is at Weston Road, and the last one is at Bathurst Street. The 4 sites could generate between $14M - $22M.
The objective is to find suitable developer partners to help them build on top of their planned LRT stations. And it’s a step in exactly the right direction for Metrolinx and this city.
Lloyd’s thesis is basically that Ed is wrong in arguing that reducing the barriers to building is the most effective way to maintain housing affordability; that cities are really made out of flesh, rather than bricks and mortar; and that urbanists need to move beyond the view that a city’s past should be preserved at all costs.
Lloyd then goes on to argue that rather than continuing to over-intensify cities like New York, San Francisco, and Toronto, we should be turning our attention to former powerhouses like Buffalo and trying to figure out how to reinvigorate those cities. The bones are already in place.
Now, I don’t disagree that there’s lots of potential in cities such as a Buffalo and Detroit. I’ve written a lot about Detroit and I’m genuinely rooting for the city. But I don’t think it’s as simple as it sounds to shift our attention, and I don’t agree with all of the critiques of Glaeser’s work.
As important as built form is, cities like Buffalo and Detroit remind us that architecture and buildings alone aren’t enough to build a city. There are countless masterpieces – such as Michigan Central Station in Detroit – that regrettably sit abandoned. You need people and communities.
There’s also a snowball effect.
As a city becomes more successful, there’s a natural tendency for more people to want to be there. It’s no different than the network effect experienced by a social network. A social network without people has no value. But the more people you add to it, the more valuable it becomes and the more difficult it becomes to replace.
So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that people will put up with expensive real estate and small apartments just to live in cities like San Francisco. That’s where they want to be. And as long as the demand to live in those cities is increasing, I continue to believe that it makes sense to build more, not less, housing and to make it reasonably easy to do so.
At the same time, I believe whole heartedly in heritage preservation. As a trained architect, there’s a strong possibility that I would shed an actual tear should a building with heritage value be torn down in my city or in any city in the world.
And that’s why when I was on CBC radio last week I said that neighborhood investment needs to be a balance between preservation and progress. The Twittersphere later blasted me for using the term “progress”, but I think you get my position.
My interpretation of Glaeser’s work has never been that he supports completely erasing a city’s past in order to make way for the future. If that is his position, then I too disagree with it.
My interpretation has instead been that he supports removing unreasonable barriers to development so that cities are able to supply – or can at least try to supply – enough housing to meet growing demand. This also doesn’t exclusively mean high-rise intensification. It could mean removing the barriers in front of things like laneway housing. And I continue to believe that this is a good idea.
I don’t believe that this approach alone will solve all housing problems, but I do think it’s a great place to start.
Thank you Lloyd for the great post.
I’ve written quite a bit about the advantages of a “rail + property” model when it comes to building public transit. It’s a model that works quite successfully in other parts of the world, such as in Hong Kong.
However, in North America the notion of land value recapture or of transit authorities acting as real estate developers is still very much in its infancy. We’re myopically focused on rail.
Which is why I said about 3 months ago that if the stations along the new Eglinton Crosstown LRT line in midtown Toronto became single storey and single purpose buildings, that we will have missed an enormous city building opportunity.
Since that post I had a number of conversations with the folks over at Metrolinx and I was delighted to learn that there were in fact plans to build additional density on top of the stations. And as of today they’ve gone completely public with that intention.
Metrolinx, with the help of Avison Young, has just issued a request for proposal (RFP) for 4 sites along Eglinton Avenue in the city. Two of them are at Keele Street, one of them is at Weston Road, and the last one is at Bathurst Street. The 4 sites could generate between $14M - $22M.
The objective is to find suitable developer partners to help them build on top of their planned LRT stations. And it’s a step in exactly the right direction for Metrolinx and this city.
Lloyd’s thesis is basically that Ed is wrong in arguing that reducing the barriers to building is the most effective way to maintain housing affordability; that cities are really made out of flesh, rather than bricks and mortar; and that urbanists need to move beyond the view that a city’s past should be preserved at all costs.
Lloyd then goes on to argue that rather than continuing to over-intensify cities like New York, San Francisco, and Toronto, we should be turning our attention to former powerhouses like Buffalo and trying to figure out how to reinvigorate those cities. The bones are already in place.
Now, I don’t disagree that there’s lots of potential in cities such as a Buffalo and Detroit. I’ve written a lot about Detroit and I’m genuinely rooting for the city. But I don’t think it’s as simple as it sounds to shift our attention, and I don’t agree with all of the critiques of Glaeser’s work.
As important as built form is, cities like Buffalo and Detroit remind us that architecture and buildings alone aren’t enough to build a city. There are countless masterpieces – such as Michigan Central Station in Detroit – that regrettably sit abandoned. You need people and communities.
There’s also a snowball effect.
As a city becomes more successful, there’s a natural tendency for more people to want to be there. It’s no different than the network effect experienced by a social network. A social network without people has no value. But the more people you add to it, the more valuable it becomes and the more difficult it becomes to replace.
So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that people will put up with expensive real estate and small apartments just to live in cities like San Francisco. That’s where they want to be. And as long as the demand to live in those cities is increasing, I continue to believe that it makes sense to build more, not less, housing and to make it reasonably easy to do so.
At the same time, I believe whole heartedly in heritage preservation. As a trained architect, there’s a strong possibility that I would shed an actual tear should a building with heritage value be torn down in my city or in any city in the world.
And that’s why when I was on CBC radio last week I said that neighborhood investment needs to be a balance between preservation and progress. The Twittersphere later blasted me for using the term “progress”, but I think you get my position.
My interpretation of Glaeser’s work has never been that he supports completely erasing a city’s past in order to make way for the future. If that is his position, then I too disagree with it.
My interpretation has instead been that he supports removing unreasonable barriers to development so that cities are able to supply – or can at least try to supply – enough housing to meet growing demand. This also doesn’t exclusively mean high-rise intensification. It could mean removing the barriers in front of things like laneway housing. And I continue to believe that this is a good idea.
I don’t believe that this approach alone will solve all housing problems, but I do think it’s a great place to start.
