So, I of course think this is silly. But here's a claim that living in high-rises -- that is, buildings with elevators -- is bad for people's physical and mental health:

In the midst of a Vancouver civic election where housing is a hot issue, Vancouver councillor and mayoral candidate Colleen Hardwick stated that “highrises are not good for people’s physical and mental health.”

Last week we asked Hardwick to expand further on her views about health and building types. She told The Tyee she believes highrises radically reduce chance encounters between people because they separate people from the street and from each other.

“Ground-oriented housing typologies are ideal,” she said, referring to housing that allows a resident to reach their place of residence using stairs, perhaps, but not an elevator.

Apparently what happens when you get into an elevator is that you immediately lose your ability to interact meaningfully with other humans. Yeah, I'm not the only one who disagrees:

“Coun. Hardwick is cherry-picking her data” about highrise living and the isolating effects of structures with elevators, accused urbanist and author Charles Montgomery. A six-storey building with an elevator, he told The Tyee, is “the most social place I’ve ever lived.”

Cities, it turns out, are complicated. And there are always trade-offs to be made. During the pandemic, some people thought it would be nice to live in a ground-oriented home in the country and now they are realizing that the country lacks things like amenities and, you know, other people.

Personally, I will happily take an elevator over a soul-crushing commute to a home without one. I also agree with Charles that multi-family buildings can be very social.

Marty over at Laneway Housing Advisors published this listing in his newsletter today. It's for an entitled lot at 78 Gladstone Avenue in Toronto that has been approved (by way of a minor variance) for 6 units. Five units in the front where a house currently sits and one unit at the back in a standalone laneway suite. Though it also happens to be a corner lot and so the laneway suite isn't really "in the back".

It's listed for $2.5M. And according to the description, you can build about 5,500 square feet (4,200 sf in the front with a 1,300 sf laneway suite). This ask translates into a land cost that is just over $450 per buildable square foot, which is far more than what high-density land typically trades for in the city right now. This is usually the case for smaller low-rise sites.

To help put this figure into some kind of context, Bullpen Consulting published in their latest insights report that the average high-density land price in Q4-2021 was $135 per buildable square foot in Toronto (416 area code only). Of course, averages only tell you so much. To truly evaluate the feasibility of a site like this, you'd need to create your own pro forma and do your own residual land value calculation. The value of development land depends on what you can build on it.

If you were to do that, I suspect that you would discover at least two things: 1) you would find it challenging to make the numbers work, particularly for rental housing, and 2) you would quickly realize that this sort of "missing middle" housing isn't, in its current form, some undiscovered bastion of housing affordability.

Part of the problem is that these 6 units are not being delivered on an as-of-right basis. Somebody had to go out and entitle the land in order to secure these permissions. That means that time and money were spent and that the current owner is now rightly seeking a margin for their efforts. But if we collectively believe that this is an appropriate and sensible form of housing, then this should not be a necessary step in the whole process. Especially for only 6 units.

All of this being said, we know that Toronto and many other cities around the world are taking a hard look at this issue. And that there is a groundswell of interest in allowing more housing in our low-rise communities. It's going to be a battle -- just look at how Toronto's new garden suite policies have now been appealed by various resident's groups. But I'm certain that we'll get there, just like we are getting there with laneway housing and other types of ADUs.

I attended the above talk last night over Zoom. (Shoutout to Michael Mortensen for inviting Slate's development team and for helping to moderate the Q&A.) The talk was a conversation between Larry Beasley (former Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver) and Theresa O'Donnell (the newly appointed Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver). Prior to this, Theresa was the director of planning for cities such as Las Vegas, Nevada, and Arlington, Texas.

I'd like to point out two comments that she made last night that I found interesting.

The first is that community meetings over Zoom actually aren't all that bad. And the reason that they're not all that bad is that they tend to draw out larger crowds (they are easier to attend), and so the feedback on development applications tends to be a bit more inclusive / representative. I agree with this overall view and I've been arguing for years (here on the blog) that the typical approach to community engagement is pretty much broken. The opinions become lopsided when you erect too many barriers to participation.

The second point has to do with the amount of land in Vancouver (and other North American cities) that is dedicated to low-rise housing. It's too much and it's going to need to be addressed in order to increase overall housing supply and to chip away at the housing affordability problem. This won't be news to this audience, but it's interesting to see how widespread this belief has become. Of course, the big questions remain: How gentle should gentle density be? How much intensification should these neighborhoods see?

I also appreciated her comment that it's pure lunacy (my words, not hers) to have higher order transit lines running through mostly low-rise neighborhoods. We need much higher densities to sustainably support these kinds of investments in infrastructure. For us Torontonians, a good example would be (most of) the underdeveloped Bloor-Danforth subway line, though there are other culprits.

Welcome Theresa.