Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
In yesterday's post, we spoke about the strengthening of Toronto's urban grid and how the city has evolved and is evolving beyond a monocentric, downtown-oriented city. But in arguing this, I was careful to say that the policies and our efforts remain a work in progress. And that's because, when the rubber hits the road, it's not easy transforming car-oriented suburbs into something that resembles urbanity.
Here, for example, is a six-storey infill apartment project proposed for Pharmacy Avenue, south of St. Clair Avenue East, in Scarborough. Pharmacy is a designated "major street," so in theory, a project of this scale could advance straight to a building permit. But for whatever reason, the developer needed some planning variances and went to the Committee of Adjustment to ask for permission.
The Committee recently said no:
“I understand it’s an arterial [and] I understand we want intensification along arterials,” one of the members said at the hearing, “but honestly, to shoehorn an apartment building into a lot like this doesn’t make any sense to me.” Tristone has appealed.
Which is frustrating:
Blair Scorgie, Mr. Malhotra’s planning consultant, points to apparent contradictions in the city’s land use and zoning policies. While council voted in favour of such intensification on its major streets, including those in the suburbs, proposals that optimize what’s allowed run up against other provisions in the official plan that aim to regulate “neighbourhood character” as well as a host of highly site-specific zoning rules that predate the city’s 1998 amalgamation.
“The fact that it appeared like `mini-mid-rise’ surrounded by bungalows has absolutely nothing to do with the policy and the regulatory framework,” he says. “That has everything to do with neighbourhood character and the prioritization of the existing context over the planned future context that’s envisioned by the city.”
Blair hits the nail on the head with these comments. Six storeys shouldn't matter. A lack of parking also shouldn't matter. The reason the proposal was refused is because the lens of review was that of yesterday's Toronto, rather than that of the Toronto of tomorrow. If the goal is more housing, and a medium-density grid that can support a comprehensive transit network, then these are exactly the kind of projects we should be building all across the city.
And they should not necessitate any planning variances.
Cover photo by Joaquin Alcaraz on Unsplash
Project rendering from Noam Hazan Design Studio
On Friday, Craig Race Architecture hosted its annual holiday dinner at Barberian's Steak House. It was a great evening and I really appreciate the invite, especially considering that we're not yet clients. Thank you, Craig. I'm also not sure I had ever been to Barberian's before. That probably makes me a bad Torontonian.
Because of their work and because of the current market, the dinner has also become a kind of gathering for missing middle developers. I felt like the odd one out not having a sixplex + laneway suite built or under construction.
What's interesting about the current environment is that it's pushing developers — both big and small — towards missing middle housing. Smaller developers are doing it because the barriers to entry are lower, and meaningful progress has been made on improving the development economics (the no HST and development charges are crucial). And bigger developers are doing it because larger projects simply don't work right now, or the absorption risk is perceived as too great.
But here's the thing: as soon as the market turns, there's once again going to be a natural inclination to scale up. On Friday, I heard many developers say, "I'm dealing with the same amount of bullshit that I used to deal with on my larger projects."
For example, I was told of an instance where a client wanted to keep the facade of their house and build a sixplex behind it. The facade had heritage and sentimental value. But because the removal of HST on rental housing only applies to new construction, keeping the facade would have made it a renovation. And so they had no choice but to demolish everything. (Of course, developers will also play the opposite game and keep one wall so as to not be deemed new construction in other instances.)
What all of this stuff means is that as soon as the conditions allow for it, developers are going to want to increase their return on bullshit. In the meantime, though, this city has an industry chomping at the bit to build more missing middle housing. We should do everything we can to harness that.
As many of you know, the Ontario Building Code requires multi-residential buildings over two storeys in height above grade to have more than one means of exiting the building. This typically means two exit stairs.
If you'd like to build something more ambitious than this, you generally have two options. One, you could design your second-floor homes to be multi-storey. I'm not a building code expert, but I've seen architects like Craig Race (and others) do this without triggering the requirement for a second exit.
Your second option is to apply for what's called an "alternative solution." This is basically a way of saying to the building department, "Hey, my design deviates from the standard prescriptive method, but it still achieves an equal or greater level of safety, performance, and functionality, so you should approve it anyway."
Last year, the City of Toronto sent a message that it was going to be more open to single-egress alternative solutions. It commissioned a report that looked at the feasibility of relaxing egress requirements for buildings up to four storeys and published a guide to help builders prepare these proposals. The goal was and is to encourage more missing middle housing.
So has it worked?
This past week, Pamela Blais shared her experiences on Twitter. She is trying to build a three-storey sixplex (Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code) with a single stair, so she submitted an ASP. It included:
Fully sprinklered building
Widened exit stair (1200mm vs. 900mm)
Expanded landings (1650mm)
Stairwell skylight for smoke exhaust
Improved fire ratings (structure, suite separation, exits, and balconies)
Balcony in every home for refuge or direct exit
And the city's response was: "Nope. This does not meet the required performance levels."
I can also share that we have had meetings with code consultants regarding the feasibility of doing a single stair in a six-storey building and the guidance we received was that there's no way an ASP would be approved. We would be wasting our time and money. All of this should make it clear that we're not there yet.
Thank you, Pamela, for sharing your experience. As one commenter on Twitter said: "A noble quest you are on."
In yesterday's post, we spoke about the strengthening of Toronto's urban grid and how the city has evolved and is evolving beyond a monocentric, downtown-oriented city. But in arguing this, I was careful to say that the policies and our efforts remain a work in progress. And that's because, when the rubber hits the road, it's not easy transforming car-oriented suburbs into something that resembles urbanity.
Here, for example, is a six-storey infill apartment project proposed for Pharmacy Avenue, south of St. Clair Avenue East, in Scarborough. Pharmacy is a designated "major street," so in theory, a project of this scale could advance straight to a building permit. But for whatever reason, the developer needed some planning variances and went to the Committee of Adjustment to ask for permission.
The Committee recently said no:
“I understand it’s an arterial [and] I understand we want intensification along arterials,” one of the members said at the hearing, “but honestly, to shoehorn an apartment building into a lot like this doesn’t make any sense to me.” Tristone has appealed.
Which is frustrating:
Blair Scorgie, Mr. Malhotra’s planning consultant, points to apparent contradictions in the city’s land use and zoning policies. While council voted in favour of such intensification on its major streets, including those in the suburbs, proposals that optimize what’s allowed run up against other provisions in the official plan that aim to regulate “neighbourhood character” as well as a host of highly site-specific zoning rules that predate the city’s 1998 amalgamation.
“The fact that it appeared like `mini-mid-rise’ surrounded by bungalows has absolutely nothing to do with the policy and the regulatory framework,” he says. “That has everything to do with neighbourhood character and the prioritization of the existing context over the planned future context that’s envisioned by the city.”
Blair hits the nail on the head with these comments. Six storeys shouldn't matter. A lack of parking also shouldn't matter. The reason the proposal was refused is because the lens of review was that of yesterday's Toronto, rather than that of the Toronto of tomorrow. If the goal is more housing, and a medium-density grid that can support a comprehensive transit network, then these are exactly the kind of projects we should be building all across the city.
And they should not necessitate any planning variances.
Cover photo by Joaquin Alcaraz on Unsplash
Project rendering from Noam Hazan Design Studio
On Friday, Craig Race Architecture hosted its annual holiday dinner at Barberian's Steak House. It was a great evening and I really appreciate the invite, especially considering that we're not yet clients. Thank you, Craig. I'm also not sure I had ever been to Barberian's before. That probably makes me a bad Torontonian.
Because of their work and because of the current market, the dinner has also become a kind of gathering for missing middle developers. I felt like the odd one out not having a sixplex + laneway suite built or under construction.
What's interesting about the current environment is that it's pushing developers — both big and small — towards missing middle housing. Smaller developers are doing it because the barriers to entry are lower, and meaningful progress has been made on improving the development economics (the no HST and development charges are crucial). And bigger developers are doing it because larger projects simply don't work right now, or the absorption risk is perceived as too great.
But here's the thing: as soon as the market turns, there's once again going to be a natural inclination to scale up. On Friday, I heard many developers say, "I'm dealing with the same amount of bullshit that I used to deal with on my larger projects."
For example, I was told of an instance where a client wanted to keep the facade of their house and build a sixplex behind it. The facade had heritage and sentimental value. But because the removal of HST on rental housing only applies to new construction, keeping the facade would have made it a renovation. And so they had no choice but to demolish everything. (Of course, developers will also play the opposite game and keep one wall so as to not be deemed new construction in other instances.)
What all of this stuff means is that as soon as the conditions allow for it, developers are going to want to increase their return on bullshit. In the meantime, though, this city has an industry chomping at the bit to build more missing middle housing. We should do everything we can to harness that.
As many of you know, the Ontario Building Code requires multi-residential buildings over two storeys in height above grade to have more than one means of exiting the building. This typically means two exit stairs.
If you'd like to build something more ambitious than this, you generally have two options. One, you could design your second-floor homes to be multi-storey. I'm not a building code expert, but I've seen architects like Craig Race (and others) do this without triggering the requirement for a second exit.
Your second option is to apply for what's called an "alternative solution." This is basically a way of saying to the building department, "Hey, my design deviates from the standard prescriptive method, but it still achieves an equal or greater level of safety, performance, and functionality, so you should approve it anyway."
Last year, the City of Toronto sent a message that it was going to be more open to single-egress alternative solutions. It commissioned a report that looked at the feasibility of relaxing egress requirements for buildings up to four storeys and published a guide to help builders prepare these proposals. The goal was and is to encourage more missing middle housing.
So has it worked?
This past week, Pamela Blais shared her experiences on Twitter. She is trying to build a three-storey sixplex (Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code) with a single stair, so she submitted an ASP. It included:
Fully sprinklered building
Widened exit stair (1200mm vs. 900mm)
Expanded landings (1650mm)
Stairwell skylight for smoke exhaust
Improved fire ratings (structure, suite separation, exits, and balconies)
Balcony in every home for refuge or direct exit
And the city's response was: "Nope. This does not meet the required performance levels."
I can also share that we have had meetings with code consultants regarding the feasibility of doing a single stair in a six-storey building and the guidance we received was that there's no way an ASP would be approved. We would be wasting our time and money. All of this should make it clear that we're not there yet.
Thank you, Pamela, for sharing your experience. As one commenter on Twitter said: "A noble quest you are on."
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
