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:

1. Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.

2. Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.

3. 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.

Up until last year, non-residential uses within Toronto's low-rise neighborhoods were typically legal non-confirming uses. Meaning, the use wasn't technically allowed, but if it had been there for a long and continuous time, we would let it slide and say it's legal.

Then we decided that small-scale retail, service, and office uses might be kind of good in our neighborhoods. Especially if they empower people to perform their daily necessities without a car. So we agreed to allow these sorts of uses provided they don't annoy too many people.

But what about in Toronto's laneways? Can and should they go there, too?

Recently, we've spoken a lot about the case for bottom-up city planning, and the value of micro-spaces and micro-businesses (à la Tokyo). And my overarching argument has been that these are a positive thing for cities. They create opportunity by lowering the barriers to entry.

But we need to get out of the way and we need small and affordable spaces. Which is why it's hard to imagine a more ideal place than in our laneways, especially considering that there's a long history of these spaces being used for exactly this. (Read this recent article by John Lorinc.)

Fortunately, this idea continues to gain positive momentum, thanks to people like the late Michelle Senayah (co-founder of the Laneway Project) and Blair Scorgie (a partner at Sajecki Planning). So in my mind, it's only a matter of time before we start getting out of the way.

It was bittersweet to learn last week that Toronto's chief planner -- Gregg Lintern -- will be retiring at the end of this year.

He accomplished a lot during his six-year tenure. Here's an excerpt from a recent Globe and Mail article by Alex Bozikovic:

"...he took the department through significant reforms: allowing new houses in back laneways, then garden suites; eliminating minimum parking requirements; even legalizing four-unit apartment buildings on any lot in the city."

All of this was not easy, as anyone in our industry will attest.

I also got to know Gregg, a little, by way of our development projects. And I can say that he (1) genuinely loved our great city and (2) was always looking for ways to make things better, whether that be through planning policy or through processes internal to City Hall.

Thank you for your service, Gregg.