I live in a condominium. I find it extremely desirable. I don't yearn to live anywhere else. And I think of it as my home. But there is of course truth to this Globe and Mail article:

Canadians, by and large, continue to think of condos and apartments as housing, not homes. That’s hardly surprising given the way Canada builds them: small units in tall towers clustered in downtown cores or near busy transit hubs. They’re the one- and two-bedrooms young people rent in their 20s (and, increasingly, their 30s). The starter homes. The initial landing spot for newcomers. But they are not desirable homes for two large swaths of the population. Young families need multiple bedrooms and proximity to parks and schools. Retirees looking to downsize often say they want to remain in the same neighbourhood. A dearth of higher-density homes for these two groups has dire consequences for cities.

The problem is twofold.

Our land use policies are too restrictive, though that is slowing starting to change for the better. And it is simply not economically feasible to build larger, family-sized apartments at any sort of meaningful scale. This is not a developer unwillingness problem, it is a math problem.

Toronto, for instance, would be far better off if we had European-scaled apartment buildings all across the city and a lot more family-friendly housing. I believe this to be true at least. But in order to achieve this, we need to get serious. This is not serious.

We need to dramatically reduce development charges and other government fees. We need to get rid of the site plan control process for smaller buildings. We need to remove required amenity areas (the city is the amenity for small-scale neighborhood apartments). And the list goes on.

So if anyone in government is reading this and is truly serious about building more affordable housing in this country, please give me a call. I will gladly come into your office and run you through a development pro forma so that you can see what it's going to take. We can fix housing.

My friend Alex Feldman sent me an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer this week called: Why is it so hard to build family-sized apartments in Philadelphia? As is the case in many/most North American cities, the article talks about how the majority of new multifamily builds are filled with studios and one bedrooms.

It then goes on to suggest that some of the reasons for this include: cultural biases in favor of suburban living, antiquated building codes (such as the requirement for two means of egress), exclusionary zoning ordinances, bad urban schools, financing availability, and so on.

This is something that we have talked about many times before on the blog and, while I do agree that it's complicated and that there are many variables to consider, I think the key factor remains price. As I said before: "Everybody wants a 3 bedroom condo until they see what they cost."

So I think this is probably the most important point in the article:

Partly that’s because Philadelphia, unlike Boston, New York, and Washington, has a vast supply of rowhouses that are still affordable to people in a position to buy. For those who prefer new construction, the past couple decades have seen a burst of modern rowhouse building.

If large multi-family apartments were more cost effective than Philadelphia's vast supply of rowhouses, I am certain that demand would increase markedly. But that is not the case. So I think a more accurate way to view large apartments is as a luxury good. They're a terrific way to live, if you can afford it.

I live in a condominium. I find it extremely desirable. I don't yearn to live anywhere else. And I think of it as my home. But there is of course truth to this Globe and Mail article:

Canadians, by and large, continue to think of condos and apartments as housing, not homes. That’s hardly surprising given the way Canada builds them: small units in tall towers clustered in downtown cores or near busy transit hubs. They’re the one- and two-bedrooms young people rent in their 20s (and, increasingly, their 30s). The starter homes. The initial landing spot for newcomers. But they are not desirable homes for two large swaths of the population. Young families need multiple bedrooms and proximity to parks and schools. Retirees looking to downsize often say they want to remain in the same neighbourhood. A dearth of higher-density homes for these two groups has dire consequences for cities.

The problem is twofold.

Our land use policies are too restrictive, though that is slowing starting to change for the better. And it is simply not economically feasible to build larger, family-sized apartments at any sort of meaningful scale. This is not a developer unwillingness problem, it is a math problem.

Toronto, for instance, would be far better off if we had European-scaled apartment buildings all across the city and a lot more family-friendly housing. I believe this to be true at least. But in order to achieve this, we need to get serious. This is not serious.

We need to dramatically reduce development charges and other government fees. We need to get rid of the site plan control process for smaller buildings. We need to remove required amenity areas (the city is the amenity for small-scale neighborhood apartments). And the list goes on.

So if anyone in government is reading this and is truly serious about building more affordable housing in this country, please give me a call. I will gladly come into your office and run you through a development pro forma so that you can see what it's going to take. We can fix housing.

My friend Alex Feldman sent me an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer this week called: Why is it so hard to build family-sized apartments in Philadelphia? As is the case in many/most North American cities, the article talks about how the majority of new multifamily builds are filled with studios and one bedrooms.

It then goes on to suggest that some of the reasons for this include: cultural biases in favor of suburban living, antiquated building codes (such as the requirement for two means of egress), exclusionary zoning ordinances, bad urban schools, financing availability, and so on.

This is something that we have talked about many times before on the blog and, while I do agree that it's complicated and that there are many variables to consider, I think the key factor remains price. As I said before: "Everybody wants a 3 bedroom condo until they see what they cost."

So I think this is probably the most important point in the article:

Partly that’s because Philadelphia, unlike Boston, New York, and Washington, has a vast supply of rowhouses that are still affordable to people in a position to buy. For those who prefer new construction, the past couple decades have seen a burst of modern rowhouse building.

If large multi-family apartments were more cost effective than Philadelphia's vast supply of rowhouses, I am certain that demand would increase markedly. But that is not the case. So I think a more accurate way to view large apartments is as a luxury good. They're a terrific way to live, if you can afford it.