The New York Times posted an interesting article today talking about how roommates in the city are dividing and conquering expensive rentals using temporary walls. This is obviously not a new practice. But it’s a good case study in what people will do in order to make living in a specific location affordable – in this case, Manhattan.

The first example is a one bedroom apartment that was converted to a 4-person apartment. Here is the floor plan (from the New York Times):

The living/dining room was divided up using a T-shaped partition wall – which is required to stop 2 feet shy of the ceiling – to create two additional bedrooms. The original bedroom is then shared via two twin beds. Et voilà. Now you have an apartment where the $3,750 per month rent becomes less than $1,000 per person.

Probably the most annoying thing about this setup would be the lack of acoustic privacy. Since the partition walls don’t go all the way up to the ceiling (photo here), you’d obviously hear everything. One person in the article described it as living in the same room as all of your roommates, but not being able to see anyone.

Of course, there’s also a space consideration:

Mr. Meyer, 23, has the smallest room by far. “It kind of feels like you’re living in Harry Potter’s cupboard,” said Mr. Meyer, who is in his freshman year at Columbia after serving for three years in the Israel Defense Forces.

The roommates, three of whom grew up together in Toronto, don’t mind the close quarters or the lack of privacy. “It’s definitely not for everyone,” Mr. Meyer said. “When you live with your best friends, it couldn’t be better. We hardly spend time in our rooms.”

I saw a lot of this here in Toronto while I was in undergrad. 55 Charles Street West was always a great candidate for these sorts of hacks because the units are large and because the building is filled with solariums. Inevitably, they became additional bedrooms. 

(Sidebar: My understanding is that there was a period of time in Toronto where solariums were excluded from gross floor area calculations. So developers used to always put them in to capture more area. That’s why buildings of a certain vintage always seem to have them.)

In any event, the above certainly makes the case for more micro units and co-living arranagements. Many people seem willing to deal with a variety of living situations in order to live where they want to live. Urban affordability is certainly a global concern.

I have been writing about the startup Opendoor.com for over 2 years now. And I continue to believe that they are the most promising disruptor in the residential real estate space. 

Here is the first post that I wrote back in July 2014 after they raised their first round of funding. Here is the second post that I wrote after they launched in Phoenix. And here is another post that I wrote 6 months ago where I argued, once again, that they are doing something worth paying attention to. (This last post explains how the platform works.)

Well, about a week ago it was announced that they have raised another round of funding: a $210 million Series D. In all likelihood, the company’s valuation is now over $1 billion. Here’s the Techcrunch announcement where the message was: huge ass number; risky business model.

In response to this, Ben Thompson wrote a terrific and widely shared blog post called, Opendoor: A Startup Worth Emulating. I love his post because he says what I have firmly believed and argued for many years: Zillow and Redfin are not disruptive real estate startups.

This is what he says about Zillow:

“And yet, the most successful real estate startup, Zillow (which acquired its largest competitor Trulia a couple of years ago), is little more than a glorified marketing tool: the company makes most of its revenue by getting real estate agents — the ones collecting 6% of fees, split between the buying and selling agents — to pay to advertise their houses on the site. Certainly a free tool that makes it easier to find houses in a more intuitive way is valuable — Zillow has acquired the sort of userbase that allow it to build an advertising business for a reason — but at the end of the day the company is a tax on a system that hasn’t really changed in decades.”

And though very risky, he argues that Opendoor is far better positioned to shake up the status quo. 

Here are two of his key points:

“Sellers are uniquely disadvantaged under the current system, which is another way of saying they are an underserved market with unmet needs.” [Sellers are the side of the market that Opendoor is specifically targeting.]

“Opendoor has a new business model: taking advantage of a theoretical arbitrage opportunity (earning fees on houses sold at a slight mark-up) by leveraging technology in pursuit of previously impossible scale that should, in theory, ameliorate risk.”

And here’s what that could ultimately mean for the industry:

“Opendoor has many more reasons why it might fail than Zillow or Redfin, but its potential upside is far greater as a result. First is the immediate opportunity: sellers who can’t wait. However, as Opendoor grows its seller base, especially geographically, its risk will start to decrease thanks to diversification and sheer size; that will allow it to lower its “market risk” charge which will lead to more sellers. More sellers means both less risk and an increasingly compelling product for buyers to access, first with a real estate agent and eventually directly. More buyers will mean lower marketing costs and faster sell-through, which will lower risk further and thus lower prices, pushing the cycle forward. It’s even possible to envision a future where Opendoor actually does uproot the anachronistic real estate agent system that is a relic of the pre-Internet era, and they will have done so with realtors not only not fighting them but, on the buying side, helping them.”

I’m with Ben on this.

I just want to do a quick follow-up to my recent post about the momentum currently developing around laneway housing here in Toronto. 

In the post, I mentioned that two councillors have come out in support of this housing typology. However, I neglected to mention that Evergreen CityWorks is also at the table, as well as a housing advocacy group called Lanescape. It was mentioned in the comments, but I know that not everyone checks that part of the blog.

I say this for two reasons:

1) I thought about starting a similar initiative to Lanescape. (I’ve had lanewaylove.com registered for many years. Brand identity shown above.) But after meeting one of the Lanescape founders this past week, I think it only makes sense for me to instead throw my support behind them. They are accomplishing a lot in this space.

2) Lanescape has a survey up on their website and the results will be used to guide a laneway suite planning framework that will (hopefully) be implemented by the City of Toronto. So I wanted to encourage you all to complete it. Even if you don’t live in Toronto, still fill it out. It’s important for cities to learn from each other.

Your support will go a long way in making laneway housing a reality in the city.