I just stumbled upon an interview with Christopher Hawthorne (architecture critic for the Los Angeles Times) talking about a “third Los Angeles.” 

His argument is that the first Los Angeles ran from about 1880 to World War II, and was characterized by a form of urbanism that most of, today, do not associate with LA. It was a city of streetcars, innovative multi-family housing, and local landscapes.

The second Los Angeles was the second half of the 20th century. And it is the LA that probably comes to mind for most people when they think of LA. It is the city of freeways, single-family homes, and sprawl.

The third Los Angeles is the city’s most recent iteration and started sometime around 2000. Like many things in life, it is in some ways a return to the past: namely the first LA. It is about urban intensification, transit, and more drought resistant landscapes. It is a city that senses its geographic limits.

I like how he talks about some of the challenges associated with intensification and this third LA:

“People in very good conscience who live in Santa Monica or San Francisco think of a moratorium on development as a progressive thing to support rather than reactionary or conservative or just in their own political self-interest. I don’t have a problem with somebody who bought a house at a certain point saying, “I bought into a certain place, you know, I want it to stay this way, and I’m going to use whatever resources I can to keep it that way.” They have every right to say that, even if I disagree. I have a problem with people saying that’s consistent with a progressive agenda about cities or a forward-looking attitude about the environment or about resources. It’s not.”

After my post about “the great balcony debate”, there was a bit of discussion on Twitter. Ken Wilcox then responded with a video talking about the mixed-use Timmerhuis building in Rotterdam designed by OMA. 

At the 1 minute mark there’s a clip of one of the residents opening a large set of sliding doors. Here’s a screenshot of what that looks like:

I did a bit of digging on the project and found this fact sheet. The sliding doors in the residential units measure 1.8m x 2.6m. They go from floor-to-ceiling (~8′-6″). The windows are also triple-glazed! (3 glass panes + 2 air chambers.)

I think this is a great way to open up a suite to the outdoors. It also looks like the glass balustrades sit inside, which keeps the building’s exterior envelope uninterrupted. Some of the other suites have large terraces where the building steps back.

In case you’re wondering, the construction costs for the entire project was about €100 million and the total gross floor area (including all of the non-residential uses) is about 45,000 m² (~484,200 sf). Unit rate seems reasonable given that triple-glazing is virtually unheard of in Toronto.

P.S. I am having some technical difficulties with Tumblr (my blogging platform) and Mailchimp (my email service provider). They both had problems and a few daily emails didn’t get sent out. Sorry about that. Hopefully it’s resolved now. If you missed the last couple of posts, you can read them online.

This morning BILD released its November new home data for the Greater Toronto Area. 

The story is one we’ve been hearing for a while. Supply is trending downward. It’s becoming harder to build. And prices are up. The average new detached house in this region is now C$1,230,961 and the average new condo is now C$493,137 (~$601 psf). Overall, average pricing is up 20% for low-rise houses and up 10% for condos, compared to this time last year.

One of the things that I find interesting about the data is how unit sizes have recently started trending upward on the high-rise (condo) side. Below is a chart from Altus Group that shows what I’m talking about. Look at the increase from the middle of 2015 to today. The average is now 820 sf, compared to what looks to be around 770 sf at its lowest point.

Now, there are a number of possible explanations for this. One is that boomers are starting to sell their houses and move into condos in larger numbers, and 500 sf just don’t do. The market is starting to cater to them. Another possible explanation is that low-rise pricing has become so out of reach for many people and families, that they are now looking to condos to fill that need.

I see both scenarios playing out in new projects today. But this second scenario, in particular, is one that I’ve been thinking about for a few years now. It’s less obvious than the boomer play. But I think of it as the market maturing. I like seeing families living right in the city and I am sure we will see more of that in the future.