Last week I wrote about Toronto's plan to make fourplexes as-of-right across the city, but also why this form of missing middle housing shouldn't have a maximum floor space index.
Today, let's look at the numbers in a bit more detail.
Subscribe
Last week I wrote about Toronto's plan to make fourplexes as-of-right across the city, but also why this form of missing middle housing shouldn't have a maximum floor space index.
Today, let's look at the numbers in a bit more detail.
Last week I wrote about Toronto's plan to make fourplexes as-of-right across the city, but also why this form of missing middle housing shouldn't have a maximum floor space index.
Today, let's look at the numbers in a bit more detail.
Lot width: 20'
Lot depth: 115'
Site area: 2,300 sf
Your total allowable gross floor area would be 1,380 square feet (0.6 x 2,300 sf).
If you build a laneway suite in this city, that won't count towards your total allowable GFA (otherwise they'd be very challenging/impossible to build). But if you want to build something like a triplex or a fourplex, it counts.
The one important caveat is that if you're building a residential building -- that isn't an apartment building with 5 or more homes -- you can deduct the floor area of the basement:
This, of course, helps the situation. But it doesn't solve all of our problems.
If you assume that the basement can be one home, that still only leaves 1,380 square feet for the other three, technically permissible, homes. This equals: 3 homes x 460 square feet.
Another option would be 2 homes x 690 square feet. But still, we're not exactly making it easy to deliver more "family-sized homes" in the city.
And herein lies one of the problems (plural, because there are others). We can say that fourplexes are allowed across the city, but it may not actually be technically feasible or practical to build them.
Note: I am not a planner. If you are, leave a comment below.
I am a big fan of Victoria-based developer Aryze. And their Pearl Block project is a good example of why. Developed on an awkward triangular lot that had been sitting vacant for nearly 65 years and that presumably every other developer had been overlooking, the project brought six family-oriented townhouses to the Oaklands neighborhood of Victoria, BC.
https://twitter.com/Sean_Hertel/status/1510355848253644800?s=20&t=_M6tfOVhxU9tWicNjF7Flg
Planner Sean Hertel shared this (embedded above) on Twitter over the weekend. It is a lawn sign from Toronto's Junction neighborhood that is calling for a stop to demolishing family houses for high rises.
From what I can tell, this law sign is trying to communicate a few key messages.
One, high-rises are monstrous beings that enjoy praying on innocent low-rise houses and squashing them with their feet, and sometimes their asymmetric hands.
Two, it is mostly impossible to conceive of a world in Toronto where families live in high-rises and don't live in grade-related housing with a backyard.
And three, there is little value in building more, rather than less, housing in order to help with affordability concerns. Perhaps the thinking is that it needs to be low-rise affordable housing, or nothing.
With all of this said, let's do a little thought exercise today on the blog.
Let's for a second assume that there aren't any high-rises proposed in the Junction; only European-scaled mid-rise buildings that sit on the area's main avenues and back onto low-rise single-family neighborhoods. Let's also assume that these buildings will be sculpted in complete deference to their rear neighbors so that things like shadows are minimized.
Let's assume that more housing is better than less housing.
Finally, let's assume that, get this, noble families may actually be able to live in mid-rise and high-rise buildings. And that there are already many successful examples of this taking place in the city, such as over here in CityPlace.
What key messages would this lawn sign be then communicating?
Lot width: 20'
Lot depth: 115'
Site area: 2,300 sf
Your total allowable gross floor area would be 1,380 square feet (0.6 x 2,300 sf).
If you build a laneway suite in this city, that won't count towards your total allowable GFA (otherwise they'd be very challenging/impossible to build). But if you want to build something like a triplex or a fourplex, it counts.
The one important caveat is that if you're building a residential building -- that isn't an apartment building with 5 or more homes -- you can deduct the floor area of the basement:
This, of course, helps the situation. But it doesn't solve all of our problems.
If you assume that the basement can be one home, that still only leaves 1,380 square feet for the other three, technically permissible, homes. This equals: 3 homes x 460 square feet.
Another option would be 2 homes x 690 square feet. But still, we're not exactly making it easy to deliver more "family-sized homes" in the city.
And herein lies one of the problems (plural, because there are others). We can say that fourplexes are allowed across the city, but it may not actually be technically feasible or practical to build them.
Note: I am not a planner. If you are, leave a comment below.
I am a big fan of Victoria-based developer Aryze. And their Pearl Block project is a good example of why. Developed on an awkward triangular lot that had been sitting vacant for nearly 65 years and that presumably every other developer had been overlooking, the project brought six family-oriented townhouses to the Oaklands neighborhood of Victoria, BC.
https://twitter.com/Sean_Hertel/status/1510355848253644800?s=20&t=_M6tfOVhxU9tWicNjF7Flg
Planner Sean Hertel shared this (embedded above) on Twitter over the weekend. It is a lawn sign from Toronto's Junction neighborhood that is calling for a stop to demolishing family houses for high rises.
From what I can tell, this law sign is trying to communicate a few key messages.
One, high-rises are monstrous beings that enjoy praying on innocent low-rise houses and squashing them with their feet, and sometimes their asymmetric hands.
Two, it is mostly impossible to conceive of a world in Toronto where families live in high-rises and don't live in grade-related housing with a backyard.
And three, there is little value in building more, rather than less, housing in order to help with affordability concerns. Perhaps the thinking is that it needs to be low-rise affordable housing, or nothing.
With all of this said, let's do a little thought exercise today on the blog.
Let's for a second assume that there aren't any high-rises proposed in the Junction; only European-scaled mid-rise buildings that sit on the area's main avenues and back onto low-rise single-family neighborhoods. Let's also assume that these buildings will be sculpted in complete deference to their rear neighbors so that things like shadows are minimized.
Let's assume that more housing is better than less housing.
Finally, let's assume that, get this, noble families may actually be able to live in mid-rise and high-rise buildings. And that there are already many successful examples of this taking place in the city, such as over here in CityPlace.
What key messages would this lawn sign be then communicating?
Each of the towns has 3 bedrooms. Each has a living room facing the street (but with privacy from the neighbor). Each has a large rooftop deck (with 5 foot parapet walls so no kids fall over). And according to the developer, each sold for less than the average price of a single-family home in the Oaklands area. Not surprisingly, the project also won all sorts of awards.
It is a great example of the kind of beautiful and mid-market missing middle housing that so many of us are always talking about. Why build 1 home when you can build 6? Why build 6 homes when you can build 18? Still, there remains far too many obstacles in the way of any sort of housing that doesn't conform to the status-quo:
https://twitter.com/TalktoARYZE/status/1540376487605329920?s=20&t=bKIUB5Agb5KKFoVW2emBjw
It shouldn't be this difficult. And it shouldn't take this long. Actually, let me rephrase this. It can't be this difficult and it can't this long; that is, if we're expecting to actually come close to meeting the demand for new housing. There is no great mystery as to why the missing middle is, you know, missing. We made it that way.
Keep up the great work team Aryze.
Photography: Ema Peter via D'Arcy Jones Architects
Each of the towns has 3 bedrooms. Each has a living room facing the street (but with privacy from the neighbor). Each has a large rooftop deck (with 5 foot parapet walls so no kids fall over). And according to the developer, each sold for less than the average price of a single-family home in the Oaklands area. Not surprisingly, the project also won all sorts of awards.
It is a great example of the kind of beautiful and mid-market missing middle housing that so many of us are always talking about. Why build 1 home when you can build 6? Why build 6 homes when you can build 18? Still, there remains far too many obstacles in the way of any sort of housing that doesn't conform to the status-quo:
https://twitter.com/TalktoARYZE/status/1540376487605329920?s=20&t=bKIUB5Agb5KKFoVW2emBjw
It shouldn't be this difficult. And it shouldn't take this long. Actually, let me rephrase this. It can't be this difficult and it can't this long; that is, if we're expecting to actually come close to meeting the demand for new housing. There is no great mystery as to why the missing middle is, you know, missing. We made it that way.
Keep up the great work team Aryze.
Photography: Ema Peter via D'Arcy Jones Architects
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog