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.
I spent this morning filming a new short video for Junction House. My friends Adriana and Mateusz live in a beautiful boutique condominium building downtown. They are also raising their young daughter there, and using it as an office and design studio (he's an architect). This is a story that we are looking to tell in a new campaign that we'll be launching this fall, and so I very much appreciate them volunteering their time.
We talk about this a lot on the blog, but there are deep cultural biases in Toronto (and throughout North America) around single-family housing. But that is changing. For a variety of reasons, more and more people are choosing to live in multi-family buildings and to raise families within them. We believe that there are many benefits to this lifestyle choice, and that it is ultimately a positive thing for our cities. So that's what we were discussing this morning.
Thank you both for your time, and thank you to Studio Haus for figuring out how to get the lighting right in a corner suite with copious amounts of natural light.
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1399368976229097473?s=20
I came across the above floor plan over the weekend. I reshared it on Twitter and there was then a pretty good discussion about what people like and don't like. I mean, who doesn't like looking at floor plans?
The suite is 790 square feet with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. It rents, at least according to Bobby's original tweet, at $2,600 per month. That's $3.29 per square foot. I'm guessing that the apartment is in Philadelphia solely based on Bobby's location.
The divisive thing in this floor plan is the two inset bedrooms. Some people don't like these. But designing a good floor plan is like working through a puzzle. You have all these constraints (some of which are just personal preference) and you have to find ways to work around them.
When you're working with a deep urban floor plate, you pretty much have no choice but to design floor plans with inset bedrooms. Otherwise, the suites get too big and they stop making economic sense. I have talked about this a few times before on the blog.
So what you do is "bury" the bedroom(s) and keep the main living space as open as possible. In this case, the living/dining dimensions are about 17' wide x 10' deep. So a pretty good size, and certainly a very good width.
An alternate solution might be to flip one of the bedrooms up towards the main glass (keeping the second one inset). But given that you only have 17 feet to work with here, something is going to have to give. So if you made the living room 9' wide, you'd then only have somewhere around 8' for your bedroom.
Personally, I don't mind inset bedrooms, especially if they allow for more generous living spaces. So I think that this is a fairly reasonable and functional suite layout. I would have absolutely lived in an apartment like this when I was going to school in Philadelphia. (Is this even the right location?)
But if I were to make a few tweaks:
I would compress the bedrooms slightly to enlarge the living space even more. (Though if the target market is student roommates, perhaps the idea is to allow for a desk in the bedroom.) I would then flip the closets to the partition wall between the two bedrooms to improve sound attenuation.
I would also try and get the kitchen out of the hallway and into the main living/dining area. I don't know where all the plumbing stacks sit (see, constraints), but perhaps it just slides up toward the glass. Another solution might be on the other side of the upper bedroom (where there is currently a closet).
But what are your thoughts? Would you rent this apartment? Comments welcome below.
I spent this morning filming a new short video for Junction House. My friends Adriana and Mateusz live in a beautiful boutique condominium building downtown. They are also raising their young daughter there, and using it as an office and design studio (he's an architect). This is a story that we are looking to tell in a new campaign that we'll be launching this fall, and so I very much appreciate them volunteering their time.
We talk about this a lot on the blog, but there are deep cultural biases in Toronto (and throughout North America) around single-family housing. But that is changing. For a variety of reasons, more and more people are choosing to live in multi-family buildings and to raise families within them. We believe that there are many benefits to this lifestyle choice, and that it is ultimately a positive thing for our cities. So that's what we were discussing this morning.
Thank you both for your time, and thank you to Studio Haus for figuring out how to get the lighting right in a corner suite with copious amounts of natural light.
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1399368976229097473?s=20
I came across the above floor plan over the weekend. I reshared it on Twitter and there was then a pretty good discussion about what people like and don't like. I mean, who doesn't like looking at floor plans?
The suite is 790 square feet with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. It rents, at least according to Bobby's original tweet, at $2,600 per month. That's $3.29 per square foot. I'm guessing that the apartment is in Philadelphia solely based on Bobby's location.
The divisive thing in this floor plan is the two inset bedrooms. Some people don't like these. But designing a good floor plan is like working through a puzzle. You have all these constraints (some of which are just personal preference) and you have to find ways to work around them.
When you're working with a deep urban floor plate, you pretty much have no choice but to design floor plans with inset bedrooms. Otherwise, the suites get too big and they stop making economic sense. I have talked about this a few times before on the blog.
So what you do is "bury" the bedroom(s) and keep the main living space as open as possible. In this case, the living/dining dimensions are about 17' wide x 10' deep. So a pretty good size, and certainly a very good width.
An alternate solution might be to flip one of the bedrooms up towards the main glass (keeping the second one inset). But given that you only have 17 feet to work with here, something is going to have to give. So if you made the living room 9' wide, you'd then only have somewhere around 8' for your bedroom.
Personally, I don't mind inset bedrooms, especially if they allow for more generous living spaces. So I think that this is a fairly reasonable and functional suite layout. I would have absolutely lived in an apartment like this when I was going to school in Philadelphia. (Is this even the right location?)
But if I were to make a few tweaks:
I would compress the bedrooms slightly to enlarge the living space even more. (Though if the target market is student roommates, perhaps the idea is to allow for a desk in the bedroom.) I would then flip the closets to the partition wall between the two bedrooms to improve sound attenuation.
I would also try and get the kitchen out of the hallway and into the main living/dining area. I don't know where all the plumbing stacks sit (see, constraints), but perhaps it just slides up toward the glass. Another solution might be on the other side of the upper bedroom (where there is currently a closet).
But what are your thoughts? Would you rent this apartment? Comments welcome below.
If I were to make a broad generalization for the way that we typically design the structural systems for residential buildings and office buildings here in Toronto it would be as follows: office buildings tend to have a big structural core with perimeter columns and residential buildings tend to have a smaller core accompanied by both columns and shear walls (long structural walls essentially). There are a myriad of other differences, but for the purposes of this post, I'm going to run with this broad classification.
When something is typically done a certain way it often means that it is generally what the market wants and it is a cost effective solution. In the case of office buildings, this sort of structural system is essential for maintaining open plans and future flexibility. You can't have shear walls interrupting your floor plates. And because big office buildings also tend to have a lot of elevators, the structural core is usually what provides lateral stability to the building (or at least this is what the structural engineers tell me).
But this same imperative for open plans isn't usually there for residential buildings. In this case, the unit demising is often fairly fixed and the individual resident/tenant spaces tend to be smaller than in office buildings, which makes frequent structural elements a lot more palatable. And since the elevator cores also tend to be smaller (fewer elevators), there is usually a need to introduce other structural elements that can provide the building with lateral stability. (Again, this is what the engineers tell me.) So enter all the shear walls.
But every now and then, somebody in Toronto will ask: Is this the right way to be building? Other cities don't build their residential buildings with all of these shear walls and so should we really be limiting the future flexibility of our multi-family housing supply by constructing in this way? These are good questions. The short answer is that it tends to be easier/cheaper to build this way. Our market is used to it. And generally end-users are just fine with it.
However, this method of building isn't necessarily a universal truth. The structural system for One Delisle, for example, is far closer to that of an office building than it is to that of a typical residential tower. Much of this was driven by the building's architecture and its continually changing floor plates. I have also heard of instances where purpose-built rental developers are choosing to go column over shear wall so that there's greater flexibility in the future. There's certainly a case to be made for this.
As developers, it is impossible to know all there is to know about any one discipline. You need the right team in place for that. But we do have to look at the bigger picture, weigh all of the constraints, and then hopefully make a reasonably good decision. This is one example of that.
Image: Bay-Adelaide Centre North, Toronto
If I were to make a broad generalization for the way that we typically design the structural systems for residential buildings and office buildings here in Toronto it would be as follows: office buildings tend to have a big structural core with perimeter columns and residential buildings tend to have a smaller core accompanied by both columns and shear walls (long structural walls essentially). There are a myriad of other differences, but for the purposes of this post, I'm going to run with this broad classification.
When something is typically done a certain way it often means that it is generally what the market wants and it is a cost effective solution. In the case of office buildings, this sort of structural system is essential for maintaining open plans and future flexibility. You can't have shear walls interrupting your floor plates. And because big office buildings also tend to have a lot of elevators, the structural core is usually what provides lateral stability to the building (or at least this is what the structural engineers tell me).
But this same imperative for open plans isn't usually there for residential buildings. In this case, the unit demising is often fairly fixed and the individual resident/tenant spaces tend to be smaller than in office buildings, which makes frequent structural elements a lot more palatable. And since the elevator cores also tend to be smaller (fewer elevators), there is usually a need to introduce other structural elements that can provide the building with lateral stability. (Again, this is what the engineers tell me.) So enter all the shear walls.
But every now and then, somebody in Toronto will ask: Is this the right way to be building? Other cities don't build their residential buildings with all of these shear walls and so should we really be limiting the future flexibility of our multi-family housing supply by constructing in this way? These are good questions. The short answer is that it tends to be easier/cheaper to build this way. Our market is used to it. And generally end-users are just fine with it.
However, this method of building isn't necessarily a universal truth. The structural system for One Delisle, for example, is far closer to that of an office building than it is to that of a typical residential tower. Much of this was driven by the building's architecture and its continually changing floor plates. I have also heard of instances where purpose-built rental developers are choosing to go column over shear wall so that there's greater flexibility in the future. There's certainly a case to be made for this.
As developers, it is impossible to know all there is to know about any one discipline. You need the right team in place for that. But we do have to look at the bigger picture, weigh all of the constraints, and then hopefully make a reasonably good decision. This is one example of that.
Image: Bay-Adelaide Centre North, Toronto
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
