Here's an interesting Twitter thread by Zoë Coombes describing the crossroads that Toronto finds itself at when it comes to housing. We know we need to build more urban housing geared towards families. But unfortunately, the economics underpinning new housing bias the opposite: smaller homes. And in our current market environment, it's a real challenge to even build any new housing. Period.

Zoe argues that we have two options: we can either open up the greenbelt (i.e. sprawl) or we can make it more feasible to build infill apartment buildings catering to families. In her words, "there's no third option." I am a strong proponent of the latter over the former, and so here are a few things we really ought to be doing to improve the feasibility of these housing types in Toronto:

• Greater as-of-right permissions across the city. The new Major Street policies are a huge step in the right direction, but, in my opinion, more will need to be done to unlock a greater number of sites. Land use planning, by virtue of its political affiliation, is an especially iterative process.

• Eliminate the Site Plan Control process for larger projects. Currently, projects with more than 10 units are subject to Site Plan Control. This is an unnecessary barrier that adds cost and extends project timelines. My understanding is that this change is already underway. Good.

• Eliminate or greatly reduce Development Charges on new infill housing. I've already written a lot about this topic, so I won't repeat myself. But know that it's material to development feasibility. Here's some positive news from the end of last year.

• Allow buildings with a single exit stair. This is crucial for smaller-scale projects where every bit of efficiency counts (net rentable area to gross construction area). It will also help to unlock better floor plans, including dual-aspect suites.

• Streamline environmental approvals. In Ontario, if you are "converting" a site to a more sensitive land use (such as residential), you are required to obtain a Record of Site Condition from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Depending on the conditions of the site, this process can take years. Human safety is obviously the number one priority, but lengthy review timelines do make small projects entirely infeasible.

Again, the good news is that some of these changes are already underway. So we're at least headed in the right direction. But is there anything else you would add to this list?

Cover photo by Kai Pilger on Unsplash

We talk a lot about the greenbelt here in Toronto. Some argue that it’s squeezing the housing market and driving up prices.

But what about the yellowbelt? (Credit to Gil Meslin for the term.)

Here is a land use map of Toronto:

The yellow areas are “neighborhoods.” They, along with parks, ravines, watercourses, and valleys, make up ¾ of the city’s land area. The Official Plan describes these areas as being “stable” – meaning they will see little physical change. Supply cannot adjust to demand.

I get why this is the way it is and I understand how difficult it would be change something like this. But let’s not ignore the impact that this land use constraint has and will continue to have on the housing market. 

It’s the yellowbelt. Thank you Gil for letting me to steal the name.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an interesting article that ties in nicely with two of my recent posts. My post about North American population growth and my post about the San Francisco pro-development group known as BARF.

The WSJ article is about the growing divide between affordable and expensive cities in the US. And the argument is that expansionist, or sprawling, cities are better at suppressing home values and maintaining affordability:

“The developed residential area in Atlanta, for example, grew by 208% from 1980 to 2010 and real home values grew by 14%. In contrast, in the San Francisco-San Jose area, developed residential land grew by just 30%, while homes values grew by 188%.”

Now, here’s a chart saying that same thing:

The reality is that greenfield development (suburban sprawl) generally has far fewer barriers to development than urban infill development. So I’m not surprised to see cities like Las Vegas, Atlanta, and Phoenix clustered towards the bottom right.

At the same time though, I’m obviously not convinced that sprawl is an optimal outcome. I think there are other costs not reflected in the chart above. So what’s the best solution here, assuming we want to build inclusive mixed-income cities?

Here's an interesting Twitter thread by Zoë Coombes describing the crossroads that Toronto finds itself at when it comes to housing. We know we need to build more urban housing geared towards families. But unfortunately, the economics underpinning new housing bias the opposite: smaller homes. And in our current market environment, it's a real challenge to even build any new housing. Period.

Zoe argues that we have two options: we can either open up the greenbelt (i.e. sprawl) or we can make it more feasible to build infill apartment buildings catering to families. In her words, "there's no third option." I am a strong proponent of the latter over the former, and so here are a few things we really ought to be doing to improve the feasibility of these housing types in Toronto:

• Greater as-of-right permissions across the city. The new Major Street policies are a huge step in the right direction, but, in my opinion, more will need to be done to unlock a greater number of sites. Land use planning, by virtue of its political affiliation, is an especially iterative process.

• Eliminate the Site Plan Control process for larger projects. Currently, projects with more than 10 units are subject to Site Plan Control. This is an unnecessary barrier that adds cost and extends project timelines. My understanding is that this change is already underway. Good.

• Eliminate or greatly reduce Development Charges on new infill housing. I've already written a lot about this topic, so I won't repeat myself. But know that it's material to development feasibility. Here's some positive news from the end of last year.

• Allow buildings with a single exit stair. This is crucial for smaller-scale projects where every bit of efficiency counts (net rentable area to gross construction area). It will also help to unlock better floor plans, including dual-aspect suites.

• Streamline environmental approvals. In Ontario, if you are "converting" a site to a more sensitive land use (such as residential), you are required to obtain a Record of Site Condition from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Depending on the conditions of the site, this process can take years. Human safety is obviously the number one priority, but lengthy review timelines do make small projects entirely infeasible.

Again, the good news is that some of these changes are already underway. So we're at least headed in the right direction. But is there anything else you would add to this list?

Cover photo by Kai Pilger on Unsplash

We talk a lot about the greenbelt here in Toronto. Some argue that it’s squeezing the housing market and driving up prices.

But what about the yellowbelt? (Credit to Gil Meslin for the term.)

Here is a land use map of Toronto:

The yellow areas are “neighborhoods.” They, along with parks, ravines, watercourses, and valleys, make up ¾ of the city’s land area. The Official Plan describes these areas as being “stable” – meaning they will see little physical change. Supply cannot adjust to demand.

I get why this is the way it is and I understand how difficult it would be change something like this. But let’s not ignore the impact that this land use constraint has and will continue to have on the housing market. 

It’s the yellowbelt. Thank you Gil for letting me to steal the name.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an interesting article that ties in nicely with two of my recent posts. My post about North American population growth and my post about the San Francisco pro-development group known as BARF.

The WSJ article is about the growing divide between affordable and expensive cities in the US. And the argument is that expansionist, or sprawling, cities are better at suppressing home values and maintaining affordability:

“The developed residential area in Atlanta, for example, grew by 208% from 1980 to 2010 and real home values grew by 14%. In contrast, in the San Francisco-San Jose area, developed residential land grew by just 30%, while homes values grew by 188%.”

Now, here’s a chart saying that same thing:

The reality is that greenfield development (suburban sprawl) generally has far fewer barriers to development than urban infill development. So I’m not surprised to see cities like Las Vegas, Atlanta, and Phoenix clustered towards the bottom right.

At the same time though, I’m obviously not convinced that sprawl is an optimal outcome. I think there are other costs not reflected in the chart above. So what’s the best solution here, assuming we want to build inclusive mixed-income cities?