My internet friend (and fellow Penn alum), Bobby Fijan, is a strong proponent of more family-friendly housing in urban centers. And by strong proponent, I mean that he is both building more family-friendly housing as a developer and publishing thoughtful research on the topic. His most recent project is this study, which surveyed more than 10,000 people, and looked at what it will take to build more urban homes for young families.
What he and his co-author Lyman Stone found is the following:
People who don't have enough space at home are less likely to have children.
Apartments are a growing share of new housing in the US, but they are becoming increasingly less family friendly.
Americans are willing to pay more in rent per square foot for the same amount of space if there are more bedrooms.
Developers are not properly accounting for the higher vacancy and turnover associated with smaller apartments (especially in the current market environment).
Cities could increase the number of family-friendly apartments if they did things like exempt them from FAR calculations, accelerate approvals/permitting, and so on.
This is a topic that I feel similarly about. I am an urbanist and I believe that cities are at their best when they provide for every generation and demographic segment. It's also not a new topic for cities like Toronto.
But I do think cities like Toronto and Vancouver are a bit unique. If you look at some of the floor plan examples in the report, you'll find one-bedroom apartments at 750 square feet and two-bedroom apartments at 1,100 square feet. Part of the thinking is that these floor plans could accommodate additional bedrooms in order to make them more family friendly (and it would be accretive to developers based on the above finding).
But by Toronto standards, these would be very generous apartments. At 750 sf, it is likely the apartment would already have 2 bedrooms and possibly even a den/office. The reason for this is that affordability has been strained for a long time in this city, and the market responded with shrinkflation. Every square foot has already been optimized.
So if we truly want to encourage more family-friendly apartments, I believe that we are going to need to change the cost structure underpinning the development of these homes. In other words, we need to make them cheaper to build so that more families can afford a bit more space. The way you start to do this is by doing some of the things listed in the last point above and by reducing added taxes and levies.
Canada is a metric country. We started adopting the metric system in 1970 and in 1971 we got the Weights and Measures Act. But even though we are officially a metric country, it is still common to use the imperial system in everyday life. For example, my driver's license says 190 cm, but I would never tell someone this, unless I were in Europe. I would use feet and inches.
The other area where it is common to use the imperial system is in construction and real estate. Officially, all drawings submitted to a municipality need to be in metric. Typically millimeters are used, meaning a common residential floor-to-floor height in Toronto works out to something like 2950 or 3000 if you want 9 feet clear to the underside of each slab.
As you can see, in design and construction it is very common to switch back and forth between millimeters and feet/inches. Marketing floor plans are typically always in square feet as well. A lot of this, I'm sure, has to do with our historical ties to the UK and our deep integration with the US market.
But the reality is that switching back and forth is inefficient, and imperial weights and measures feel like a random and outdated system. Nate Bargatze does a hilarious job of highlighting that in this SNL skit called Washington's Dream. So I don't know about you, but I'm ready to go full metric. I wonder what it will take for the US to finally get on board with the rest of the world.
(Thanks to my business partner Lucas for sharing the above skit with me. I'm a big Nate Bargatze fan.)
Cover photo by patricia serna on Unsplash
At the beginning of this year (which seems like eons ago), I wrote about a CityLab series that Feargus O'Sullivan was doing on the vernacular home designs of a handful of European cities. Cities like London and Berlin.
Well, after a brief pause, that series is back in the form of a CityLab "storythread." It's now called, "The Iconic Home Designs That Define Our Global Cities." In it, he explores the various floor plans, housing typologies, and tenures that you might find around the world. Everywhere from from Singapore to Reykjavik.
The most recent article is all about Prague's communist-era apartments. Apparently people call these paneláks because they were initially built using some sort of collection of prefabricated panels. They were a quick and dirty housing solution for a city and country that were rapidly urbanizing starting in the late 1950s. (See, prefab works.)
But what I find most interesting about the story of these paneláks is how their reputation seems to have changed and evolved over time. They proved to be a far more adaptable form of housing than you might initially think, going from written off and ready for demolition, in some cases, to then becoming a form of aspirational housing.
Part of this allegedly had to do with a handover from state ownership to private ownership, which maybe goes to show you that architecture and design, alone, aren't enough when it comes to housing innovation. You really need to consider the whole picture.
But regardless, it is clear to me that tastes do change, and housing is no exception. Renewal is an integral part of urban life. And one generation's trash might be another generation's treasure.
Photo by Jakub Matyáš on Unsplash