We often talk about the challenges associated with smaller scale developments on this blog. They are difficult to underwrite, there are diseconomies of scale and, after a certain point, developers typically start to require a certain minimum size. In other words, if you have a big development machine with a lot of fixed costs, you probably don't want to build even 100-150 homes at a time. You want something like 250-300 homes as a starting point.
But there is something so great about small infill projects, which is another topic that we like to talk about on this blog. Take, for example, the above 10,940 square foot project at 6001-6009 Rue St-Hubert in Montréal. Designed by L. McComber, the project includes 2 commercial spaces and 8 homes (specifically, 2 studios and 4 multi-level "townhouses").
Using rough measurement approximations from Google Maps, the lot looks to be about 15m wide x 26m deep. So the lot itself is somewhere around 4,200 sf, which is effectively a double lot based on the prevailing frontages in the area. According to this rough math, I'm guessing the FSI (floor space index) of this development is somewhere around 2.5x.
It is certainly a beautiful project, but in my mind the two most noteworthy aspects of this development -- at least for this audience -- are the following:
The architect essentially acted as the developer. They wanted to build and then own their own office space, and so they now occupy the ground floor of this project. As a partial end-user of the development, this likely means that they underwrote it slightly differently compared to if they were a pure developer.
The project's circulation space is outside and is largely housed in a central open-air courtyard.
Here's what #2 looks like:
This second point about circulation is an important one because it's an effective way to reduce hard costs, improve overall efficiency (rentable/saleable divided by gross construction area), and lower long-term operating costs. Of course, exterior stairs/circulation are quite common across Montréal's walkups. So maybe this isn't all that novel for them.
But I still think it's a perfect reminder that we shouldn't use climate as an excuse. Montréal is both colder and snowier than Toronto. And just look how they're building. I would happily live here. Would you?
The thing that we have been talking about for many months on this blog finally happened: Toronto City Council voted (18-7) in favor of allowing fourplexes as-of-right across all residential areas of the city. (If you're curious, here is a map of which Councillors voted yes and which ones voted no. It's not all that surprising.)
This is a major accomplishment and milestone for Toronto. So congratulations to everyone who has been working to make this happen. But of course, now is when the rubber hits the road: Will the market actually build this new housing typology (for Toronto) at scale? Is it actually feasible?
Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers came out this morning saying that the answer is no. These multiplexes aren't feasible and it is "not going to solve our housing crisis or even come close." He may be right, but I think a lot of people -- myself included -- are now looking closely at their feasibility.
In fact, this morning I ran into a lender on the street -- look what happens when you come into the office -- that is seeing if these can be built using CMHC financing. And this is just one example of the work happening all over the city right now.
There is also the question of scale. Small development projects are challenging. The general rule of thumb is that if you have the resources, you should build as big as you possibly can to drive economies of scale. So if these are actually feasible, who will want to build them?
The margins on a build like this are almost certainly going to be somewhere between negative and marginally positive. But I still think there's something to be said about being directionally right. There's more work to be done and these policies will likely get adjusted, but I think that's just fine as long as we're moving forward.
And that's what we're doing today.
We often talk about the challenges associated with smaller scale developments on this blog. They are difficult to underwrite, there are diseconomies of scale and, after a certain point, developers typically start to require a certain minimum size. In other words, if you have a big development machine with a lot of fixed costs, you probably don't want to build even 100-150 homes at a time. You want something like 250-300 homes as a starting point.
But there is something so great about small infill projects, which is another topic that we like to talk about on this blog. Take, for example, the above 10,940 square foot project at 6001-6009 Rue St-Hubert in Montréal. Designed by L. McComber, the project includes 2 commercial spaces and 8 homes (specifically, 2 studios and 4 multi-level "townhouses").
Using rough measurement approximations from Google Maps, the lot looks to be about 15m wide x 26m deep. So the lot itself is somewhere around 4,200 sf, which is effectively a double lot based on the prevailing frontages in the area. According to this rough math, I'm guessing the FSI (floor space index) of this development is somewhere around 2.5x.
It is certainly a beautiful project, but in my mind the two most noteworthy aspects of this development -- at least for this audience -- are the following:
The architect essentially acted as the developer. They wanted to build and then own their own office space, and so they now occupy the ground floor of this project. As a partial end-user of the development, this likely means that they underwrote it slightly differently compared to if they were a pure developer.
The project's circulation space is outside and is largely housed in a central open-air courtyard.
Here's what #2 looks like:
This second point about circulation is an important one because it's an effective way to reduce hard costs, improve overall efficiency (rentable/saleable divided by gross construction area), and lower long-term operating costs. Of course, exterior stairs/circulation are quite common across Montréal's walkups. So maybe this isn't all that novel for them.
But I still think it's a perfect reminder that we shouldn't use climate as an excuse. Montréal is both colder and snowier than Toronto. And just look how they're building. I would happily live here. Would you?
The thing that we have been talking about for many months on this blog finally happened: Toronto City Council voted (18-7) in favor of allowing fourplexes as-of-right across all residential areas of the city. (If you're curious, here is a map of which Councillors voted yes and which ones voted no. It's not all that surprising.)
This is a major accomplishment and milestone for Toronto. So congratulations to everyone who has been working to make this happen. But of course, now is when the rubber hits the road: Will the market actually build this new housing typology (for Toronto) at scale? Is it actually feasible?
Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers came out this morning saying that the answer is no. These multiplexes aren't feasible and it is "not going to solve our housing crisis or even come close." He may be right, but I think a lot of people -- myself included -- are now looking closely at their feasibility.
In fact, this morning I ran into a lender on the street -- look what happens when you come into the office -- that is seeing if these can be built using CMHC financing. And this is just one example of the work happening all over the city right now.
There is also the question of scale. Small development projects are challenging. The general rule of thumb is that if you have the resources, you should build as big as you possibly can to drive economies of scale. So if these are actually feasible, who will want to build them?
The margins on a build like this are almost certainly going to be somewhere between negative and marginally positive. But I still think there's something to be said about being directionally right. There's more work to be done and these policies will likely get adjusted, but I think that's just fine as long as we're moving forward.
And that's what we're doing today.
One conventional way to think about cities is that people migrate to urban areas in order to make more money. This remains true today and the data is pretty clear that, if you live in an urban area, you're likely to make more money than if you didn't -- even if you're just as educated. You're also likely to make even more money if the city is really big (there's a correlation between income and city size). And you probably also walk a little faster given that, you know, time equals money.
But there are other reasons for wanting to live in a city. And probably the biggest is that they can bring us pleasure. Back in 2001, Edward Glaeser, Jed Kook, and Albert Saiz published this paper called, "Consumer City", where they showed that high amenity cities have tended to grow faster than low amenity cities. They also went on to demonstrate that, in high amenity cities, urban rents have tended to increase faster than urban wages, suggesting that there are other reasons for wanting to live in a city beyond simply wage growth.
Fast forward to today and Ed Glaeser has a new opinion piece in the New York Times arguing the following:
New York is undergoing a metamorphosis from a city dedicated to productivity to one built around pleasure. . . The economic future of the city that never sleeps depends on embracing this shift from vocation to recreation and ensuring that New Yorkers with a wide range of talents want to spend their nights downtown, even if they are spending their days on Zoom. We are witnessing the dawn of a new kind of urban area: the Playground City.
I saw City Observatory comment that they thought it was odd Glaeser didn't mention his previous work on the Consumer City. But I wonder if this is him not wanting to suggest that this was a trend decades in the making. Maybe instead, he wanted to position it as a dramatic and profound shift brought about by a pandemic. But how can you not ask this question: Is the Playground City truly something novel, or are we just following a trend line?
In my view, they're not all that different. The basic idea is that people like cities that are cool and fun, and so they will pay a premium to be in those kinds of places. This was true in 2001 and it's still true in 2023. The only difference today is that we now believe we have too much office space in some markets, and so we're trying to recalibrate around work vs. pleasure. But even with this, the work component of our cities isn't going to zero.
Photo by Jan Folwarczny on Unsplash
One conventional way to think about cities is that people migrate to urban areas in order to make more money. This remains true today and the data is pretty clear that, if you live in an urban area, you're likely to make more money than if you didn't -- even if you're just as educated. You're also likely to make even more money if the city is really big (there's a correlation between income and city size). And you probably also walk a little faster given that, you know, time equals money.
But there are other reasons for wanting to live in a city. And probably the biggest is that they can bring us pleasure. Back in 2001, Edward Glaeser, Jed Kook, and Albert Saiz published this paper called, "Consumer City", where they showed that high amenity cities have tended to grow faster than low amenity cities. They also went on to demonstrate that, in high amenity cities, urban rents have tended to increase faster than urban wages, suggesting that there are other reasons for wanting to live in a city beyond simply wage growth.
Fast forward to today and Ed Glaeser has a new opinion piece in the New York Times arguing the following:
New York is undergoing a metamorphosis from a city dedicated to productivity to one built around pleasure. . . The economic future of the city that never sleeps depends on embracing this shift from vocation to recreation and ensuring that New Yorkers with a wide range of talents want to spend their nights downtown, even if they are spending their days on Zoom. We are witnessing the dawn of a new kind of urban area: the Playground City.
I saw City Observatory comment that they thought it was odd Glaeser didn't mention his previous work on the Consumer City. But I wonder if this is him not wanting to suggest that this was a trend decades in the making. Maybe instead, he wanted to position it as a dramatic and profound shift brought about by a pandemic. But how can you not ask this question: Is the Playground City truly something novel, or are we just following a trend line?
In my view, they're not all that different. The basic idea is that people like cities that are cool and fun, and so they will pay a premium to be in those kinds of places. This was true in 2001 and it's still true in 2023. The only difference today is that we now believe we have too much office space in some markets, and so we're trying to recalibrate around work vs. pleasure. But even with this, the work component of our cities isn't going to zero.
Photo by Jan Folwarczny on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
