Subscribe
Here is a mapping, from the University of Toronto's School of Cities, showing the number of "closed" building permits issued in Toronto between 2013 and 2023 for both rear-yard suites (laneway houses and garden suites) and secondary suites (like basement apartments).
A "closed" building permit probably means that construction is complete. However, it is not uncommon for a permit to inadvertently remain open. This happened to me with Mackay Laneway House. The permit was supposed to be closed, but it wasn't.
So here's the same mapping with open (i.e. active) permits also turned on:
Three things immediately stand out:
Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.
Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.
North Toronto is wealthy and isn't having either of these housing typologies.
Looking at these mappings, it probably seems like a decent amount of new housing. But that's not really the case:
From 2013 to 2023, Toronto issued 2,209 building permits for secondary suites (1,525 have been closed and 684 remain open as of December 31, 2023).
And from 2020 to 2023, Toronto issued 898 building permits for rear-yard suites (192 have been closed and 706 remain open, which does suggest some increased adoption). Rear-yard suites only became permissible in 2018, which is why the date range is shorter.
To be fair, I would imagine that many secondary suites get built without a building permit. So I think the above number is probably underestimating actual supply. But even still, it doesn't change the conclusion: A lot more needs to be done to increase the supply of new housing in Toronto.
I opened Twitter today and one of the first tweets that I saw was about Austin passing a new resolution that allows 3 homes on every lot by-right; lowers the minimum lot size to 2,500 sf; and expedites planning approvals for triplexes and fourplexes. I then scrolled a bit further and found a tweet on how Vancouver is about to vote on a new motion that will allow 4-6 homes on every residential lot as-of-right. (The US typically uses the term "by-right", whereas in Canada we use "as-of-right".)
None of this is surprising. As many of you know, Toronto just did something similar by allowing fourplexes + a laneway or garden suite on every residential lot. But all of this is still noteworthy because it reinforces one simple fact: cities across North America are all starting to rethink their low-rise single-family neighborhoods. I know that many of you will say that fourplexes are not enough. We should be doing more. But I think this is an important step.
The single-family home hegemony is ending. We are now asking our cities to do more with the same amount of land.
Here is a mapping, from the University of Toronto's School of Cities, showing the number of "closed" building permits issued in Toronto between 2013 and 2023 for both rear-yard suites (laneway houses and garden suites) and secondary suites (like basement apartments).
A "closed" building permit probably means that construction is complete. However, it is not uncommon for a permit to inadvertently remain open. This happened to me with Mackay Laneway House. The permit was supposed to be closed, but it wasn't.
So here's the same mapping with open (i.e. active) permits also turned on:
Three things immediately stand out:
Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.
Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.
North Toronto is wealthy and isn't having either of these housing typologies.
Looking at these mappings, it probably seems like a decent amount of new housing. But that's not really the case:
From 2013 to 2023, Toronto issued 2,209 building permits for secondary suites (1,525 have been closed and 684 remain open as of December 31, 2023).
And from 2020 to 2023, Toronto issued 898 building permits for rear-yard suites (192 have been closed and 706 remain open, which does suggest some increased adoption). Rear-yard suites only became permissible in 2018, which is why the date range is shorter.
To be fair, I would imagine that many secondary suites get built without a building permit. So I think the above number is probably underestimating actual supply. But even still, it doesn't change the conclusion: A lot more needs to be done to increase the supply of new housing in Toronto.
I opened Twitter today and one of the first tweets that I saw was about Austin passing a new resolution that allows 3 homes on every lot by-right; lowers the minimum lot size to 2,500 sf; and expedites planning approvals for triplexes and fourplexes. I then scrolled a bit further and found a tweet on how Vancouver is about to vote on a new motion that will allow 4-6 homes on every residential lot as-of-right. (The US typically uses the term "by-right", whereas in Canada we use "as-of-right".)
None of this is surprising. As many of you know, Toronto just did something similar by allowing fourplexes + a laneway or garden suite on every residential lot. But all of this is still noteworthy because it reinforces one simple fact: cities across North America are all starting to rethink their low-rise single-family neighborhoods. I know that many of you will say that fourplexes are not enough. We should be doing more. But I think this is an important step.
The single-family home hegemony is ending. We are now asking our cities to do more with the same amount of land.
Yesterday evening I visited the future of Toronto's neighborhoods. It is located at 367 Howland Avenue. And it takes the form of 10 homes on a lot that previously used to house only 1. Developed by Green Street Flats and designed by Craig Race Architecture, it is a near perfect example of what Toronto hopes to achieve with its new multiplex policies. As Craig put it last night, "we found the missing middle!"
Now to be fair, this is a double lot, measuring about 10m wide in total. And so this is twice the size of what the new policies now allow on a single lot -- a fourplex plus a laneway suite or garden suite (4+1). But it is still generally consistent with what you could do today if you had two contiguous lots.
That said, this project predates the new multiplex policies, meaning it required a long list of zoning variances and it led to an inevitable fight with the neighbors. This small project required an 8-day contested hearing before it was granted approval! Start to finish, Howland took over 3 years.
That is ridiculous and so I think all of us should view the new multiplex policies as meaningful progress in our city. What was once contentious and a huge pain is now permissible as-of-right. Isn't it funny how rules and perspectives change? "No, you can't do this! Okay, now you can. Please do a lot of it." So for the purposes of this post, let's talk about Howland as if it were built on an as-of-right basis and you could do the same on your own lot if you were so inclined.
From a design perspective, the homes are organized as follows:
There's a full-floor basement suite, a full-floor suite on the main level, two back-to-back two-storey upper suites, and then a laneway suite at the back. One reason for this configuration is that it means you never have to walk up more than one flight of stairs to get to your main living space. This was one of the design criteria and I think it works very well. Here's an example of what this looks like (this is a suite #3):
For this particular site, the entrance to suite #4 is at the back of the fourplex and accessed via an adjacent laneway. But for the "inboard" fourplex, each suite is accessed via the main street. Once again, I think this all works very well. I just wonder if there could be an opportunity to shave additional costs by moving some of the circulation outside (kind of like this). I guess it would depend on the width of the lot.
Of course, the big question remains: Do projects of this scale actually make any money? Because if they don't, then people aren't going to continue building them. Though, I would say there are two ways to think about underwriting a project like this.
The first is from a 100% investment standpoint: build 5 homes, rent 5 homes, and then collect a reasonable risk-adjusted return. The second is a hybrid approach. Maybe it's build 5 homes, rent 4 homes, and live in the other one. In this case, the math is likely a bit different. It could just be about subsidizing your living expenses as opposed to generating a commensurate return.
But in both cases, we know that these are very skinny projects. You need to be extra careful with your costs. And from what I gleaned last night, 6 or more suites is a better underwriting starting point (compared to 5). We also know that these projects only pencil with CMHC financing. Period. Full stop. If CMHC financing were to go away or meaningfully change, so to do these missing middle projects.
So as we look toward the future of housing in Toronto's neighborhoods, we need to keep in mind that these projects happen very much on the margin (as does all development, but it's an even thinner line here). Meaning it remains to be seen whether these will happen at scale across the city, which is now the hope. It'll also be interesting to see if developers like Green Street don't scale up over time. I suspect they will.
Congratulations to Green Street Flats, Craig Race Architecture, and the rest of the team on helping to pioneer this new housing typology. It's a glimpse of the future and, judging by the turnout at last night's open house, Toronto is ready for it.
Yesterday evening I visited the future of Toronto's neighborhoods. It is located at 367 Howland Avenue. And it takes the form of 10 homes on a lot that previously used to house only 1. Developed by Green Street Flats and designed by Craig Race Architecture, it is a near perfect example of what Toronto hopes to achieve with its new multiplex policies. As Craig put it last night, "we found the missing middle!"
Now to be fair, this is a double lot, measuring about 10m wide in total. And so this is twice the size of what the new policies now allow on a single lot -- a fourplex plus a laneway suite or garden suite (4+1). But it is still generally consistent with what you could do today if you had two contiguous lots.
That said, this project predates the new multiplex policies, meaning it required a long list of zoning variances and it led to an inevitable fight with the neighbors. This small project required an 8-day contested hearing before it was granted approval! Start to finish, Howland took over 3 years.
That is ridiculous and so I think all of us should view the new multiplex policies as meaningful progress in our city. What was once contentious and a huge pain is now permissible as-of-right. Isn't it funny how rules and perspectives change? "No, you can't do this! Okay, now you can. Please do a lot of it." So for the purposes of this post, let's talk about Howland as if it were built on an as-of-right basis and you could do the same on your own lot if you were so inclined.
From a design perspective, the homes are organized as follows:
There's a full-floor basement suite, a full-floor suite on the main level, two back-to-back two-storey upper suites, and then a laneway suite at the back. One reason for this configuration is that it means you never have to walk up more than one flight of stairs to get to your main living space. This was one of the design criteria and I think it works very well. Here's an example of what this looks like (this is a suite #3):
For this particular site, the entrance to suite #4 is at the back of the fourplex and accessed via an adjacent laneway. But for the "inboard" fourplex, each suite is accessed via the main street. Once again, I think this all works very well. I just wonder if there could be an opportunity to shave additional costs by moving some of the circulation outside (kind of like this). I guess it would depend on the width of the lot.
Of course, the big question remains: Do projects of this scale actually make any money? Because if they don't, then people aren't going to continue building them. Though, I would say there are two ways to think about underwriting a project like this.
The first is from a 100% investment standpoint: build 5 homes, rent 5 homes, and then collect a reasonable risk-adjusted return. The second is a hybrid approach. Maybe it's build 5 homes, rent 4 homes, and live in the other one. In this case, the math is likely a bit different. It could just be about subsidizing your living expenses as opposed to generating a commensurate return.
But in both cases, we know that these are very skinny projects. You need to be extra careful with your costs. And from what I gleaned last night, 6 or more suites is a better underwriting starting point (compared to 5). We also know that these projects only pencil with CMHC financing. Period. Full stop. If CMHC financing were to go away or meaningfully change, so to do these missing middle projects.
So as we look toward the future of housing in Toronto's neighborhoods, we need to keep in mind that these projects happen very much on the margin (as does all development, but it's an even thinner line here). Meaning it remains to be seen whether these will happen at scale across the city, which is now the hope. It'll also be interesting to see if developers like Green Street don't scale up over time. I suspect they will.
Congratulations to Green Street Flats, Craig Race Architecture, and the rest of the team on helping to pioneer this new housing typology. It's a glimpse of the future and, judging by the turnout at last night's open house, Toronto is ready for it.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
