One natural response to yesterday's post about (housing) affordability vs. beauty is to think that I put forward a false dichotomy. Why can't we have both? Why does it need to be a zero-sum game? Surely there's a middle ground. Our cities should be both inclusive and beautiful. And of course, I don't disagree.
What I was trying to do with the post was force a thought exercise. There are lots of things that we do as city builders which serve to increase the cost/price of housing. Going to a design review panel adds time/cost. Deciding to use that really nice material from Europe adds cost (and maybe time). And even adding a simple building stepback adds time/cost.
So in doing these things, we are in effect deciding that these are more important that just building cheaper and lowering the resulting rents/sales prices. We can certainly debate the right balance and how much should be spent on things like design and/or sustainability, but it doesn't change the fact that, for better or for worse, we are saying, "it is important that we spend the money on this particular item."
Now, there is also a common counter argument that none of this really matters, because developers will always price new housing at whatever the market will bear (i.e. the maximum possible price). But as I have tried to argue many times before on this blog, this is not always true. Pushing prices too far increases risk and slows absorption.
One natural response to yesterday's post about (housing) affordability vs. beauty is to think that I put forward a false dichotomy. Why can't we have both? Why does it need to be a zero-sum game? Surely there's a middle ground. Our cities should be both inclusive and beautiful. And of course, I don't disagree.
What I was trying to do with the post was force a thought exercise. There are lots of things that we do as city builders which serve to increase the cost/price of housing. Going to a design review panel adds time/cost. Deciding to use that really nice material from Europe adds cost (and maybe time). And even adding a simple building stepback adds time/cost.
So in doing these things, we are in effect deciding that these are more important that just building cheaper and lowering the resulting rents/sales prices. We can certainly debate the right balance and how much should be spent on things like design and/or sustainability, but it doesn't change the fact that, for better or for worse, we are saying, "it is important that we spend the money on this particular item."
Now, there is also a common counter argument that none of this really matters, because developers will always price new housing at whatever the market will bear (i.e. the maximum possible price). But as I have tried to argue many times before on this blog, this is not always true. Pushing prices too far increases risk and slows absorption.
It also ignores the fact that in any given city there are going to be sites that are infeasible to develop with new housing. That is, when you look at all the costs and, yes, what the market will bear, the numbers just don't work. And so what can happen when you reduce development costs is that you now unlock more sites for new housing, increasing overall supply.
None of this is to say that our cities shouldn't be beautiful or that we shouldn't strive for creative design solutions. This is exactly what we should be doing! Instead, this post (and yesterday's) is simply a reminder that time and things do cost money, and that the decisions we make are rarely benign. In fact, they usually speak to what we value the most.
If you had to pick one, would you say that it's more important for new housing to be affordable or to be beautiful? Many of you are probably thinking that it should be both. And while it is true that good and thoughtful design doesn't always need to be more expensive, nice things do often cost money. And sometimes, doing as little as humanly possible costs even more money.
Let's consider two development scenarios. In scenario A, the developer has well-oiled machine that delivers relatively affordable, but identical rental housing all across the country. The buildings are functional and there's virtually no vacancy, but the architecture is undoubtedly bland and it certainly doesn't respond to its local context. Standardization and efficiency trumps all, including aesthetics.
In scenario B, the developer is similarly building new rental housing, but she instead invests heavily in custom designs. Each building is unique. And each building goes through a "design review panel", after which extensive changes are made in order to ensure that the design is truly beautiful and that it responds to its local context. As a result, there is a real price premium to these homes.
These are perhaps extreme examples. Usually, the goal is some sort of balance between affordability and beauty. But I do think it speaks to some of the tensions that our industry faces. So if you had to choose one, which one would it be? What kind of new homes do our cities really need more of? And if your answer is scenario B, does it change after a certain premium?
It also ignores the fact that in any given city there are going to be sites that are infeasible to develop with new housing. That is, when you look at all the costs and, yes, what the market will bear, the numbers just don't work. And so what can happen when you reduce development costs is that you now unlock more sites for new housing, increasing overall supply.
None of this is to say that our cities shouldn't be beautiful or that we shouldn't strive for creative design solutions. This is exactly what we should be doing! Instead, this post (and yesterday's) is simply a reminder that time and things do cost money, and that the decisions we make are rarely benign. In fact, they usually speak to what we value the most.
If you had to pick one, would you say that it's more important for new housing to be affordable or to be beautiful? Many of you are probably thinking that it should be both. And while it is true that good and thoughtful design doesn't always need to be more expensive, nice things do often cost money. And sometimes, doing as little as humanly possible costs even more money.
Let's consider two development scenarios. In scenario A, the developer has well-oiled machine that delivers relatively affordable, but identical rental housing all across the country. The buildings are functional and there's virtually no vacancy, but the architecture is undoubtedly bland and it certainly doesn't respond to its local context. Standardization and efficiency trumps all, including aesthetics.
In scenario B, the developer is similarly building new rental housing, but she instead invests heavily in custom designs. Each building is unique. And each building goes through a "design review panel", after which extensive changes are made in order to ensure that the design is truly beautiful and that it responds to its local context. As a result, there is a real price premium to these homes.
These are perhaps extreme examples. Usually, the goal is some sort of balance between affordability and beauty. But I do think it speaks to some of the tensions that our industry faces. So if you had to choose one, which one would it be? What kind of new homes do our cities really need more of? And if your answer is scenario B, does it change after a certain premium?
. The project was on the December 13, 2018 agenda.
No project is ever perfect, but here are two paragraphs from the minutes that I think do it justice:
The Panel thought the proposal had an "iconographic landmark quality to it". Numerous members pointed out that it's (sic) siting at a transitional "hinge point" on Yonge St would also lend itself to iconic placemaking as well as a striking addition to the view down the Yonge corridor.
The Panel was excited to have this type of sophisticated design come to Toronto. Many members felt that the massing and design solution would be a powerful and beautiful addition to the skyline. Several members commented that the proposal could become "a building with a name" similar to landmark towers in London, England. One member suggested that Toronto could use more buildings with personality.
Lots of buildings, of course, have names. What is really being discussed is a building with an identity that resonates with people in a meaningful way and that becomes associated with a particular place.
But let's not forget that being "iconic" is only one part of this equation. The goal here is ambitious architecture with genuine civic value. And if you're at all familiar with the project and broader ideas for the block, I would hope that mission is clear.
One Delisle's Design Review Panel meeting
were just published. They are public and available on the City of Toronto's website,
. The project was on the December 13, 2018 agenda.
No project is ever perfect, but here are two paragraphs from the minutes that I think do it justice:
The Panel thought the proposal had an "iconographic landmark quality to it". Numerous members pointed out that it's (sic) siting at a transitional "hinge point" on Yonge St would also lend itself to iconic placemaking as well as a striking addition to the view down the Yonge corridor.
The Panel was excited to have this type of sophisticated design come to Toronto. Many members felt that the massing and design solution would be a powerful and beautiful addition to the skyline. Several members commented that the proposal could become "a building with a name" similar to landmark towers in London, England. One member suggested that Toronto could use more buildings with personality.
Lots of buildings, of course, have names. What is really being discussed is a building with an identity that resonates with people in a meaningful way and that becomes associated with a particular place.
But let's not forget that being "iconic" is only one part of this equation. The goal here is ambitious architecture with genuine civic value. And if you're at all familiar with the project and broader ideas for the block, I would hope that mission is clear.
