Before laneway homes were permitted as-of-right in Toronto, many people couldn't imagine them being a viable housing solution, let alone a desirable housing solution. I vividly remember some critics arguing that only people of questionable moral fiber would want to live in a laneway. Toronto's laneways were only suitable for garages, cars, graffiti, and degenerates, apparently.
If you're a longtime reader of this blog you'll know that I've always felt differently. In 2014, I wrote a post calling laneway homes the new loft. And in 2021, after Mackay Laneway House was finished, I wrote that "slowly but surely, we will start to think of our lanes not as back of house, but as front of house." I went on to surmise that, one day, our laneways could even become the more desirable side of a property.
I was reminded of this prognostication earlier this week when a friend of mine, who is very active in the multiplex space, was touring me through one of his construction sites. What struck me is that he said that on every single one of his projects, the highest-grossing suite is always the laneway or garden suite. It commands the highest rent and it's what gets the most showings.
This, of course, makes sense. It's a standalone structure, whereas the other homes in a multiplex building are not. And if you have the site area to do two storeys, these suites can become relatively large — oftentimes between 1,200 and 1,400 sf. Laneways are also intimate and largely pedestrian-oriented streets, so a nice place to live.
But there's some hindsight bias in this obviousness. It wasn't that long ago that most Torontonians couldn't imagine a "house fitting behind a house." It was an unthinkable solution that would ruin the character of our low-rise neighborhoods. Now we have planning policies that not only allow them, but that are, in a way, promoting an inversion in the way our low-rise neighborhoods function.
Toronto's policies allow up to six suites on the "front" of certain properties, plus a laneway or garden suite at the "back," for a total of 7 suites. The effect is that an entirely new single-family house layer is today getting built on our laneways. An alternative way to think about this is that it's like taking an existing single-family house, pushing it to the back, and then building a small "houseplex" in the front.
Ironically, all of these policies were born out of a deep desire to not change the character of existing neighborhoods. It's why no one would dare call these six-unit structures anything resembling an apartment. They are house-plexes, which are just like single-family houses, but with an added plex in the name. Nothing out of the ordinary to see here.
But our neighborhoods are changing and they will continue to change. The market is already speaking in terms of which new homes it finds most desirable. And in the end, that's a good thing. Change and evolution are features, not bugs, of cities. When Toronto stops growing and adapting, that's when we need to start worrying.
Back in 2014, I compared laneway housing to lofts because of the latter's origin story. When manufacturing began to leave cities and warehouses started to get converted to apartments, they were viewed as dangerous, illegal misuses of commercial spaces. It was housing that no respectable middle-class person would want to live in.
Then the opposite became true. Loft living became a symbol of urban cool, so much so that every new apartment somehow became a "loft." I'm not suggesting that Toronto's laneway suites are about to stage a global takeover in quite the same way, but some 11 years later, I do think it's following the same arc of desirability. The things we desire aren't as enshrined as they may seem.
Cover photo by Nikhil Mitra on Unsplash
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."
Before laneway homes were permitted as-of-right in Toronto, many people couldn't imagine them being a viable housing solution, let alone a desirable housing solution. I vividly remember some critics arguing that only people of questionable moral fiber would want to live in a laneway. Toronto's laneways were only suitable for garages, cars, graffiti, and degenerates, apparently.
If you're a longtime reader of this blog you'll know that I've always felt differently. In 2014, I wrote a post calling laneway homes the new loft. And in 2021, after Mackay Laneway House was finished, I wrote that "slowly but surely, we will start to think of our lanes not as back of house, but as front of house." I went on to surmise that, one day, our laneways could even become the more desirable side of a property.
I was reminded of this prognostication earlier this week when a friend of mine, who is very active in the multiplex space, was touring me through one of his construction sites. What struck me is that he said that on every single one of his projects, the highest-grossing suite is always the laneway or garden suite. It commands the highest rent and it's what gets the most showings.
This, of course, makes sense. It's a standalone structure, whereas the other homes in a multiplex building are not. And if you have the site area to do two storeys, these suites can become relatively large — oftentimes between 1,200 and 1,400 sf. Laneways are also intimate and largely pedestrian-oriented streets, so a nice place to live.
But there's some hindsight bias in this obviousness. It wasn't that long ago that most Torontonians couldn't imagine a "house fitting behind a house." It was an unthinkable solution that would ruin the character of our low-rise neighborhoods. Now we have planning policies that not only allow them, but that are, in a way, promoting an inversion in the way our low-rise neighborhoods function.
Toronto's policies allow up to six suites on the "front" of certain properties, plus a laneway or garden suite at the "back," for a total of 7 suites. The effect is that an entirely new single-family house layer is today getting built on our laneways. An alternative way to think about this is that it's like taking an existing single-family house, pushing it to the back, and then building a small "houseplex" in the front.
Ironically, all of these policies were born out of a deep desire to not change the character of existing neighborhoods. It's why no one would dare call these six-unit structures anything resembling an apartment. They are house-plexes, which are just like single-family houses, but with an added plex in the name. Nothing out of the ordinary to see here.
But our neighborhoods are changing and they will continue to change. The market is already speaking in terms of which new homes it finds most desirable. And in the end, that's a good thing. Change and evolution are features, not bugs, of cities. When Toronto stops growing and adapting, that's when we need to start worrying.
Back in 2014, I compared laneway housing to lofts because of the latter's origin story. When manufacturing began to leave cities and warehouses started to get converted to apartments, they were viewed as dangerous, illegal misuses of commercial spaces. It was housing that no respectable middle-class person would want to live in.
Then the opposite became true. Loft living became a symbol of urban cool, so much so that every new apartment somehow became a "loft." I'm not suggesting that Toronto's laneway suites are about to stage a global takeover in quite the same way, but some 11 years later, I do think it's following the same arc of desirability. The things we desire aren't as enshrined as they may seem.
Cover photo by Nikhil Mitra on Unsplash
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
