Within Toronto's urban structure you have regular streets and you have things known as "Avenues." (This is among a bunch of other stuff such as Centres and Employment Areas.) What this Avenue designation does is tell you that it may be a suitable location for a new mid-rise building, which is something that I have written a lot about on this blog. Here in Toronto, this means that you would then need to consult the "Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards." Indeed, if you dust off these standards and turn to the introduction, you'll find the following: "The Performance Standards are intended to provide simple, straightforward guidance for those seeking to develop midrise projects on the Avenues."
But if you want to find some of the most truly unremarkable streets in this city, you need to look at the arterial roads that didn't quite make the cut to be an Avenue. I don't want to generalize, but they are generally exceedingly ugly. You can't help but feel like Toronto has simply outgrown the low-rise building typologies that, in most cases, still remain on these streets. In some cases, they're also directly adjacent to a subway station, which is kind of like running a great big movie theater with only a handful of seats inside. Maybe one day they'll grow up to be Avenues. But don't hold your breath. So what's another possible solution? Toronto-based PHAEDRUS Studio has an idea. It's called the Hi-Lo Hybrid.
Initially designed for a specific client and a specific site, it also happens to be something that could be deployed all across the city. What they have shown here is a 5 storey infill building on your typical long and narrow Toronto lot. As designed, it could house 4-8 units, as well as some non-residential uses, on a lot that previously only had 1-3 units. It would make a lot of sense for some of the ugly streets that I'm talking about. But let's be honest: it would be almost impossible to get approved. One of the biggest issues would probably be the adjacency/overlook issue that it generates with the neighboring backyards. It's probably also too tall.
One of the main reasons why, I think, laneway suites work and are now permissible as-of-right in Toronto is that they replace existing garages. (ADU's for the Americans.) They reallocate space that was previously used for cars to humans. And so the incremental height / density is not all that great. They, for the most part, preserve precious neighborhood character. What the Hi-Lo Hybrid proposes is not so incremental. It's bold. It would be a massive fight. I know that and you know that. But bold is generally what you need when you're trying to do great things and when you're trying to shape the future. And so with that, I'll leave you all with some words from the late American architect, Daniel Burnham.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty."
Toronto is known for its tall buildings and its contrasting low-rise neighborhoods. More recently, we have seen a proliferation of mid-rise buildings along the city's "Avenues." This is despite the many challenges and costs associated with this building typology.
But I think it's pretty clear that a further evolution is also underway. Laneway housing, which is now permitted "as-of-right," is in the early stages of being adopted and built out all across the city. And eventually I think we'll see many of Toronto's laneways evolve into fully fledged residential streets; perhaps not all that dissimilar from what you might find in compact cities like Tokyo.
Here is a good example of why "missing middle" housing is so challenging to build in Toronto, despite everyone talking about how great it would be if only we could build more of it.
It's the story of a minor variance application that was asking to sever a 50-foot lot at 2165 Gerrard Street East so that two semi-detached buildings and two laneway suites could be built. It would have added 10 family-sized rental units to a site that is on a streetcar line and that is within walking distance of both the subway and regional rail. And yet the consent to sever was denied.
How come you ask?
“I don’t believe dividing the property is in the best interest of the community,” said committee member Carl Knipfel, himself an architect and planner who complimented the beauty of the existing house and critiqued the design of the new buildings. “What is proposed is too dense … I really have serious concerns as to where this consent may lead us.”
The last sentence is the best part.
The article then goes on to argue that this is really all about the supremacy of single family homes and the desire to keep renters out of these neighborhoods. (Hey Airbnb, it's not just
Within Toronto's urban structure you have regular streets and you have things known as "Avenues." (This is among a bunch of other stuff such as Centres and Employment Areas.) What this Avenue designation does is tell you that it may be a suitable location for a new mid-rise building, which is something that I have written a lot about on this blog. Here in Toronto, this means that you would then need to consult the "Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards." Indeed, if you dust off these standards and turn to the introduction, you'll find the following: "The Performance Standards are intended to provide simple, straightforward guidance for those seeking to develop midrise projects on the Avenues."
But if you want to find some of the most truly unremarkable streets in this city, you need to look at the arterial roads that didn't quite make the cut to be an Avenue. I don't want to generalize, but they are generally exceedingly ugly. You can't help but feel like Toronto has simply outgrown the low-rise building typologies that, in most cases, still remain on these streets. In some cases, they're also directly adjacent to a subway station, which is kind of like running a great big movie theater with only a handful of seats inside. Maybe one day they'll grow up to be Avenues. But don't hold your breath. So what's another possible solution? Toronto-based PHAEDRUS Studio has an idea. It's called the Hi-Lo Hybrid.
Initially designed for a specific client and a specific site, it also happens to be something that could be deployed all across the city. What they have shown here is a 5 storey infill building on your typical long and narrow Toronto lot. As designed, it could house 4-8 units, as well as some non-residential uses, on a lot that previously only had 1-3 units. It would make a lot of sense for some of the ugly streets that I'm talking about. But let's be honest: it would be almost impossible to get approved. One of the biggest issues would probably be the adjacency/overlook issue that it generates with the neighboring backyards. It's probably also too tall.
One of the main reasons why, I think, laneway suites work and are now permissible as-of-right in Toronto is that they replace existing garages. (ADU's for the Americans.) They reallocate space that was previously used for cars to humans. And so the incremental height / density is not all that great. They, for the most part, preserve precious neighborhood character. What the Hi-Lo Hybrid proposes is not so incremental. It's bold. It would be a massive fight. I know that and you know that. But bold is generally what you need when you're trying to do great things and when you're trying to shape the future. And so with that, I'll leave you all with some words from the late American architect, Daniel Burnham.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty."
Toronto is known for its tall buildings and its contrasting low-rise neighborhoods. More recently, we have seen a proliferation of mid-rise buildings along the city's "Avenues." This is despite the many challenges and costs associated with this building typology.
But I think it's pretty clear that a further evolution is also underway. Laneway housing, which is now permitted "as-of-right," is in the early stages of being adopted and built out all across the city. And eventually I think we'll see many of Toronto's laneways evolve into fully fledged residential streets; perhaps not all that dissimilar from what you might find in compact cities like Tokyo.
Here is a good example of why "missing middle" housing is so challenging to build in Toronto, despite everyone talking about how great it would be if only we could build more of it.
It's the story of a minor variance application that was asking to sever a 50-foot lot at 2165 Gerrard Street East so that two semi-detached buildings and two laneway suites could be built. It would have added 10 family-sized rental units to a site that is on a streetcar line and that is within walking distance of both the subway and regional rail. And yet the consent to sever was denied.
How come you ask?
“I don’t believe dividing the property is in the best interest of the community,” said committee member Carl Knipfel, himself an architect and planner who complimented the beauty of the existing house and critiqued the design of the new buildings. “What is proposed is too dense … I really have serious concerns as to where this consent may lead us.”
The last sentence is the best part.
The article then goes on to argue that this is really all about the supremacy of single family homes and the desire to keep renters out of these neighborhoods. (Hey Airbnb, it's not just
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
This is very exciting to me and I think of it as the city gaining a third hierarchy of residential streets. We'd have our major arteries and avenues. We'd have our residential side streets. And then we'd have our compact laneways. Dare I say that maybe some of these laneways could even house non-residential uses such as small-scale offices.
But along with this shift, I think it's time we look at another infill opportunity -- something that planners Blair Scorgie and Sean Hertel are calling "density transition zones." What these zones hope to be is a new middle transition zone between low-rise neighborhoods (where laneway suites are already permitted) and mid-rise avenues. A place where "missing middle" type housing might be built in close proximity to major streets and existing transit. Let's call it a 100-200m zone that sits right behind our avenues.
In my mind this is immediately beneficial for two reasons. The first is obvious. It could be a place for frictionless missing middle housing. Housing that's more dense than a single family home + laneway suite, but less dense than a typical mid-rise building.
The second immediate benefit is that this transition zone could be used to help improve the overall feasibility of mid-rise avenue development. The reality is that there are many blocks along Toronto's avenues where the lot depths are simply too shallow for proper mid-rise buildings. Density transition zones could help with this, which would be not that dissimilar from how "Enhancement Zones" were intended to work (they were never approved).
If this were to happen, I think there would also be a strong case for softening some of the "requirements" in the mid-rise design guidelines. Requirements like the 45 degree angular plane that new buildings generally need to conform to. All of this would only help the overall feasibility of more European-scaled developments along Toronto's avenues and, in my opinion, that would be a great thing.
But for the same reasons that Enhancement Zones were highly contentious, I would expect a lot of grouchy people and a lot of pushback on this idea. There will be concerns about encroaching on our single-family neighborhoods, and there will be the usual objections that come up with any new development (density, traffic, dog poo, etc.) But if we're serious about building more missing middle housing, we are going to need to find ways to remove the barriers to entry. This scale of housing is simply too small to support a great deal of friction.
To learn more about how density transition zones might work, I would encourage you to check out the great site that Blair and Sean have put together, over here.
short-term rentals that people have a problem with
; it's also long-term rentals.)
The kicker, for Mr. Galbraith [the project's planner], is he knows if he wanted to sever the lot for two single-family homes he could get that permission without delay and likely also get permission to build more than local zoning allows.
“I can get variances for a one-unit McMansion every day of the week,” he said. “Lot coverage variances are very common; you want to take a bungalow down and make some big ugly house with a weird roof and a high first floor? You see those all over East York and Etobicoke.”
If missing middle-type housing is "too dense" for sites that are endowed with every form of fixed rail transit that we have available in this city, then your guess is as good as mind as to where the hell it's supposed to go. It's time to grow up Toronto.
This is very exciting to me and I think of it as the city gaining a third hierarchy of residential streets. We'd have our major arteries and avenues. We'd have our residential side streets. And then we'd have our compact laneways. Dare I say that maybe some of these laneways could even house non-residential uses such as small-scale offices.
But along with this shift, I think it's time we look at another infill opportunity -- something that planners Blair Scorgie and Sean Hertel are calling "density transition zones." What these zones hope to be is a new middle transition zone between low-rise neighborhoods (where laneway suites are already permitted) and mid-rise avenues. A place where "missing middle" type housing might be built in close proximity to major streets and existing transit. Let's call it a 100-200m zone that sits right behind our avenues.
In my mind this is immediately beneficial for two reasons. The first is obvious. It could be a place for frictionless missing middle housing. Housing that's more dense than a single family home + laneway suite, but less dense than a typical mid-rise building.
The second immediate benefit is that this transition zone could be used to help improve the overall feasibility of mid-rise avenue development. The reality is that there are many blocks along Toronto's avenues where the lot depths are simply too shallow for proper mid-rise buildings. Density transition zones could help with this, which would be not that dissimilar from how "Enhancement Zones" were intended to work (they were never approved).
If this were to happen, I think there would also be a strong case for softening some of the "requirements" in the mid-rise design guidelines. Requirements like the 45 degree angular plane that new buildings generally need to conform to. All of this would only help the overall feasibility of more European-scaled developments along Toronto's avenues and, in my opinion, that would be a great thing.
But for the same reasons that Enhancement Zones were highly contentious, I would expect a lot of grouchy people and a lot of pushback on this idea. There will be concerns about encroaching on our single-family neighborhoods, and there will be the usual objections that come up with any new development (density, traffic, dog poo, etc.) But if we're serious about building more missing middle housing, we are going to need to find ways to remove the barriers to entry. This scale of housing is simply too small to support a great deal of friction.
To learn more about how density transition zones might work, I would encourage you to check out the great site that Blair and Sean have put together, over here.
short-term rentals that people have a problem with
; it's also long-term rentals.)
The kicker, for Mr. Galbraith [the project's planner], is he knows if he wanted to sever the lot for two single-family homes he could get that permission without delay and likely also get permission to build more than local zoning allows.
“I can get variances for a one-unit McMansion every day of the week,” he said. “Lot coverage variances are very common; you want to take a bungalow down and make some big ugly house with a weird roof and a high first floor? You see those all over East York and Etobicoke.”
If missing middle-type housing is "too dense" for sites that are endowed with every form of fixed rail transit that we have available in this city, then your guess is as good as mind as to where the hell it's supposed to go. It's time to grow up Toronto.
