This is a great diagram from Smart Density comparing the urban and regional rail networks of Toronto, London, and Paris. All are at the same scale.

What immediately stands out to me — besides Toronto’s relatively miniscule network — is Paris’ compactness. I have said this before on the blog (here, here, and here), but I will say it again: There seems to be a tendency to fetishize the scale and height of Paris.

But building height is only one component of its ubiquitous built form. Unlike Toronto, we’re not talking about midrises built up against single-family homes. Paris is far more dense and its buildings are far closer together (usually with interior courtyards)

Are we also okay with these attributes?

In the world of development, there is something known as a floor space index (FSI). Some places call it a floor area ratio (FAR), but they mean the same thing. It is one measure of density. To calculate it, you simply divide the total building area by the site area. For example, if you had a 25,000 square foot piece of land and you were to build a single storey building that occupied every bit of the site (also 25,000 sf), you would have an FSI or FAR of 1.0. If you built a two storey building on only half of the site, you would similarly have an FSI or FAR of 1.0. The area didn't change, you just moved things around. That's how FSI's work.

A ratio like this tells you how intensely you may be using a piece of land, but it doesn't tell you everything or necessarily give you the full picture. Which is why I find it silly when too much emphasis is placed on this singular number. I don't think anyone in the history of the world has ever traveled to a city -- let's take Paris -- and remarked how beautiful it is because of its floor space indices. Nobody thinks like this. It's way too esoteric. What guides our experiences is built form, the ground plane, relationships to streets, materiality, light, context, and many other important things.

To give a specific example, let's take One Delisle. This project was in effect approved twice. After it was approved by City Council in July 2020 an adjacent land parcel was acquired. It wasn't absolutely necessary to do this, but we felt it made for better city building and so we did it. (We wanted to look back knowing we did the right thing.) That meant that we needed to go back to Council to revise our approvals, which ended up happening at the beginning of this year (public staff report, here). There was no change to the tower and and no change to any of the key setbacks or stepbacks. But the overall FSI did go down!

Will anyone notice or care about this lower ratio? I doubt it. Which is why I think it's silly to try and plan our cities around them. It feels like design by spreadsheet. Thankfully, I think many people recognize this.

Photo by Thibault Penin on Unsplash

Depending on who you ask, the current condo boom in Toronto might be viewed as either a good thing or a bad thing (most will have an opinion). Some people think we’re simply building too many condos. And that too many of them are small, crappy, and geared towards investors – as opposed to end-users.

While I do agree that we could be doing more to create complete communities – that is communities which serve everyone from young singles to families with 3 kids – I think there are also a lot of positives associated with Toronto’s condo obsession (full disclosure: I’m a real estate developer). It has made us more sustainable, more reliant on alternate forms of (non-car) transport, and it has made us a generally more exciting place to live.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t do better.

Lately I’ve been wondering about how other cities do it. Specifically, those European cities that somehow seem to always be able to build awesome housing projects. So today I thought I would pick one and profile it. What I really wish I had was a financial pro forma to share with you all, but in the absence of that, I’ll try and back into some of the numbers on my own.

Shown above is the 9-storey Charlotte Apartments in Berlin. It was developed by WI Concept and designed by Michels Architecture Office. I chose this building because I think it’s an attractive one and because it's of the (mid-rise) scale that Toronto is trying to promote along its many avenues. Here are the stats I was able to find online:

• Site area: 347 square meters / 3,735 square feet

• Building area: 3,000 square meters / 32,291 square feet (says gross floor area, but I don't know if that means the same thing as it does here)

• Construction costs: €3.6 million / C$5,065,691 (as of today’s rate)

• Units: 28 (sold within 1 week of launch)

• Market: ~70% of buyers in Berlin are believed to be foreign investors

Now, if we were actually building a development pro forma, we’d want to get a lot more granular in our calculations than what I’m about to do. We’d want to know gross construction area, net saleable areas, and so on. But for the purposes of this post (and because I have very little information), I’m going to simplify and do a back of the napkin set of calculations.

Based on above, the FSI (or density) is about 8.65 (32,291 sf / 3,735 sf). That’s roughly in line with many of the residential developments we’re seeing in downtown Toronto. The average unit size works out to be about 1,153 sf (32,291 sf / 28 units), but in reality it would be less if that 32,291 number is truly the gross floor area. You would need to subtract the corridors and other non-saleable areas from it before doing this calc. Either way, that is big compared to most downtown Toronto condos, but small for Berlin standards according to this ArchDaily article. Finally, if we look at construction costs, we get $157 per square foot in Canadian dollars ($5.065M / 32,291 sf). That’s low. I wonder what the land costs were.

Again, these numbers are rough rough. But I wanted to try and dissect a European development project and compare it to Toronto. The most surprising figure seems to be the low construction costs. If you have any additional insights, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.

Images: Werner Huthmacher

This is a great diagram from Smart Density comparing the urban and regional rail networks of Toronto, London, and Paris. All are at the same scale.

What immediately stands out to me — besides Toronto’s relatively miniscule network — is Paris’ compactness. I have said this before on the blog (here, here, and here), but I will say it again: There seems to be a tendency to fetishize the scale and height of Paris.

But building height is only one component of its ubiquitous built form. Unlike Toronto, we’re not talking about midrises built up against single-family homes. Paris is far more dense and its buildings are far closer together (usually with interior courtyards)

Are we also okay with these attributes?

In the world of development, there is something known as a floor space index (FSI). Some places call it a floor area ratio (FAR), but they mean the same thing. It is one measure of density. To calculate it, you simply divide the total building area by the site area. For example, if you had a 25,000 square foot piece of land and you were to build a single storey building that occupied every bit of the site (also 25,000 sf), you would have an FSI or FAR of 1.0. If you built a two storey building on only half of the site, you would similarly have an FSI or FAR of 1.0. The area didn't change, you just moved things around. That's how FSI's work.

A ratio like this tells you how intensely you may be using a piece of land, but it doesn't tell you everything or necessarily give you the full picture. Which is why I find it silly when too much emphasis is placed on this singular number. I don't think anyone in the history of the world has ever traveled to a city -- let's take Paris -- and remarked how beautiful it is because of its floor space indices. Nobody thinks like this. It's way too esoteric. What guides our experiences is built form, the ground plane, relationships to streets, materiality, light, context, and many other important things.

To give a specific example, let's take One Delisle. This project was in effect approved twice. After it was approved by City Council in July 2020 an adjacent land parcel was acquired. It wasn't absolutely necessary to do this, but we felt it made for better city building and so we did it. (We wanted to look back knowing we did the right thing.) That meant that we needed to go back to Council to revise our approvals, which ended up happening at the beginning of this year (public staff report, here). There was no change to the tower and and no change to any of the key setbacks or stepbacks. But the overall FSI did go down!

Will anyone notice or care about this lower ratio? I doubt it. Which is why I think it's silly to try and plan our cities around them. It feels like design by spreadsheet. Thankfully, I think many people recognize this.

Photo by Thibault Penin on Unsplash

Depending on who you ask, the current condo boom in Toronto might be viewed as either a good thing or a bad thing (most will have an opinion). Some people think we’re simply building too many condos. And that too many of them are small, crappy, and geared towards investors – as opposed to end-users.

While I do agree that we could be doing more to create complete communities – that is communities which serve everyone from young singles to families with 3 kids – I think there are also a lot of positives associated with Toronto’s condo obsession (full disclosure: I’m a real estate developer). It has made us more sustainable, more reliant on alternate forms of (non-car) transport, and it has made us a generally more exciting place to live.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t do better.

Lately I’ve been wondering about how other cities do it. Specifically, those European cities that somehow seem to always be able to build awesome housing projects. So today I thought I would pick one and profile it. What I really wish I had was a financial pro forma to share with you all, but in the absence of that, I’ll try and back into some of the numbers on my own.

Shown above is the 9-storey Charlotte Apartments in Berlin. It was developed by WI Concept and designed by Michels Architecture Office. I chose this building because I think it’s an attractive one and because it's of the (mid-rise) scale that Toronto is trying to promote along its many avenues. Here are the stats I was able to find online:

• Site area: 347 square meters / 3,735 square feet

• Building area: 3,000 square meters / 32,291 square feet (says gross floor area, but I don't know if that means the same thing as it does here)

• Construction costs: €3.6 million / C$5,065,691 (as of today’s rate)

• Units: 28 (sold within 1 week of launch)

• Market: ~70% of buyers in Berlin are believed to be foreign investors

Now, if we were actually building a development pro forma, we’d want to get a lot more granular in our calculations than what I’m about to do. We’d want to know gross construction area, net saleable areas, and so on. But for the purposes of this post (and because I have very little information), I’m going to simplify and do a back of the napkin set of calculations.

Based on above, the FSI (or density) is about 8.65 (32,291 sf / 3,735 sf). That’s roughly in line with many of the residential developments we’re seeing in downtown Toronto. The average unit size works out to be about 1,153 sf (32,291 sf / 28 units), but in reality it would be less if that 32,291 number is truly the gross floor area. You would need to subtract the corridors and other non-saleable areas from it before doing this calc. Either way, that is big compared to most downtown Toronto condos, but small for Berlin standards according to this ArchDaily article. Finally, if we look at construction costs, we get $157 per square foot in Canadian dollars ($5.065M / 32,291 sf). That’s low. I wonder what the land costs were.

Again, these numbers are rough rough. But I wanted to try and dissect a European development project and compare it to Toronto. The most surprising figure seems to be the low construction costs. If you have any additional insights, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.

Images: Werner Huthmacher