I am endlessly fascinated by some of the small homes that get built in Tokyo. This one, also pictured above, is called the Borderless House.
Designed by Selma Masic — in collaboration with Sei Haganuma (Haryu Wood Studio) — the house sits on a 3-meter-wide lot, has a total area of 63 square meters across three floors (~678 square feet), and allegedly houses a family of four. Bridgestone also appears to be its immediate neighbor.
To put these dimensions into perspective, 3 meters is roughly the width of a “typical” new apartment living room here in Toronto. Usually, if you have a floor plate that can accommodate an outboard bedroom up at the glass, you design for a structural grid somewhere between 6–6.5 meters.
This gives you around 10 feet for the living room and around 10 feet for the bedroom. (As a a Canadian, it's important to always bounce back and forth between metric and imperial.) In this case, the entire lot is only 3 meters wide, though a corner lot always enhances a floor plan.
All of this is fascinating because, compared to North America, it represents a completely different way of conceptualizing space. Of course, the point of posts like this one is not to suggest that this is what all homes should be like. The point is that there are benefits to allowing those who would like such a home to be able to build it.
Cover photo by Selma Masic
When it comes to cities, quality of life is a subjective measure. Some people may prefer a small city where homes are more affordable and commute times are negligible, while others may find the unique amenities of a big city more appealing — enough to outweigh the negatives.
Whatever the exact case, there are some obvious negatives that come with urban scale. The usual suspects are high housing costs, traffic congestion, noise and pollution, crime and safety concerns, and the list goes on. But is it universally true that quality of life has to decline as a city grows?
I don't think so at all. I wasn't able to find a good primary source on this topic, but the obvious example and outlier that comes to mind is Tokyo. It is both the largest metropolitan area in the world and a city that consistently ranks near the top of most quality of life indices.
So how do they do it?
There are lots of ingredients that go into a city like Tokyo, but I would argue that one of if not its most important, is its transit network. Tokyo has one of the highest rail modal splits and one of the lowest driving rates in the world. And it's the only way a city of this scale could actually function as efficiently as it does.
This is not me being an ideologue (which I am sometimes called); it is me being a pragmatist. Show me a big global city with more than 10 million people that is oriented around the car and does not have a traffic congestion problem, and I'll happily change my mind.
Back in the summer, I wrote about the publication Impossible Toronto that my friends Gabriel Fain, Francesco Valente-Gorjup, and Aleris Rodgers authored for the Neptis Foundation. (If you'd like to purchase a copy of the book, you can now do that online here.) And this past weekend, Alex Bozikovic of The Globe and Mail wrote about it in an article called, "A dense, urban Canada? It's possible."
Here's an excerpt:
The formula is simple: Replace century-old houses in the middle of the city with courtyard blocks – apartment buildings of four to six storeys, lined up side by side along the street and leaving a doughnut-hole of green. Their apartments have windows facing both the street and a green space at the centre of the block. Such buildings make up the fabric of many Western European cities.
Yet they are impossible to build in Canada for a variety of regulatory reasons. Most important: Our building codes require every apartment to have two separate exit stairs. If you eliminate that rule and follow the lead of Switzerland and Germany (two officious, safety-conscious states), everything changes. Buildings become much less bulky. Apartments gain light and fresh air in every room. Homes become more square, with better layouts and better rooms. This means a dramatic improvement in residents’ quality of life.
Alex is exactly right that required exiting is a major hindrance to the housing type proposed in Impossible Toronto. We talk a lot about this on the blog, and as an industry. But big picture, it is only one item in a long list of things that will need to change if we actually want to emulate the housing types that are typical of most Western European cities.
My contribution to Impossible Toronto was a handful of high-level development pro formas (pages 94-95). I was asked to model what is permissible today under the new "Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods" (EHON) policies, and then model the Impossible Toronto typology. Finally, we decided to toggle this second pro forma to show what it would take to make it financially feasible, including removing things like development charges and site plan control.
It's important to point out that our current EHON permissions — which support as-of-right 6 storey apartments on all major streets — are already challenging to underwrite and have not yet been proven to work at scale. The starting problem is that developers need to be able to arrive at a residual land value that is greater than the as-is value of what's there today — usually that's a single-family home in the case of the EHON policies.
This can happen in two ways. Developers need to be able to get enough density to justify a higher land value and/or the development cost structure needs to be low enough that enough value can be attributed to the land. This is where things like single-stair buildings come into play. They allow for more efficient designs, which help with project viability on a few different dimensions.
Without a viable acquisition, housing projects do not start. So in my view, we need to attack this impossible problem from two sides. First, as-of-right densities need to translate into land values that are greater than the status quo. This is what will motivate landowners to sell. Second, the end result needs to be high-quality livable housing that as many people as possible can afford.
If we can achieve these two outcomes, then we have a chance to not only make the impossible, possible, but we have a chance to scale it across Toronto and Canada.
Cover photo by Aditya Chinchure on Unsplash