In Ontario, couples with children overwhelmingly live in ground-oriented ownership housing. This form of housing is still the majority for all other households (at least according to 2021 Census data), but apartment rentals make up a much larger share.
Given these figures, it is not surprising that the Missing Middle Initiative has found that family migration patterns within southern Ontario tend to correlate strongly (r = 0.71) with where ground-oriented ownership housing is being built, which largely means outside of the Greater Toronto Area.
This is an important finding if you're worried about Canadians not having enough babies. But this correlation doesn't tell us exactly what's going on. The data suggests that families with children have a clear preference for ground-oriented ownership — even if it means moving farther out — but what other options do they really have?
Three-bedroom apartments remain a relatively elusive housing type because demand is low. But as we have talked about, demand is a function of price, and multi-family buildings are more expensive to construct than low-rise housing. So how much of this perceived consumer preference for ground-oriented housing is actually just people driving until they qualify?
In other words, how many people are simply solving for X amount of space/bedrooms at Y price? And what would happen if we made large three-bedroom apartments in walkable transit-oriented communities the most affordable option? It still wouldn't be for everyone, but I bet that we would see demand adjust.
More importantly, it would give people options.
Charts from the Missing Middle Initiative; cover photo by Jason Ng on Unsplash
Erica Alini of The Globe and Mail just published this article called, "The era of the shoebox condo is over." You should read it, and not just because I'm quoted in it. One thing that I appreciate about the article is that it gets into some of the development economics underlying new projects.
The high-level math provided by Bryn Davidson of Lanefab (Vancouver) once again shows that land is the residual claimant in a pro forma and that the price developers can feasibly pay needs to be greater than the status-quo value. It's exactly what I was getting at in this recent post about the Impossible Toronto publication.
The other thing I'd like to highlight is the following chart showing the share of three-bedroom apartments in newly built condominiums and purpose-built rentals in the city:
In Ontario, couples with children overwhelmingly live in ground-oriented ownership housing. This form of housing is still the majority for all other households (at least according to 2021 Census data), but apartment rentals make up a much larger share.
Given these figures, it is not surprising that the Missing Middle Initiative has found that family migration patterns within southern Ontario tend to correlate strongly (r = 0.71) with where ground-oriented ownership housing is being built, which largely means outside of the Greater Toronto Area.
This is an important finding if you're worried about Canadians not having enough babies. But this correlation doesn't tell us exactly what's going on. The data suggests that families with children have a clear preference for ground-oriented ownership — even if it means moving farther out — but what other options do they really have?
Three-bedroom apartments remain a relatively elusive housing type because demand is low. But as we have talked about, demand is a function of price, and multi-family buildings are more expensive to construct than low-rise housing. So how much of this perceived consumer preference for ground-oriented housing is actually just people driving until they qualify?
In other words, how many people are simply solving for X amount of space/bedrooms at Y price? And what would happen if we made large three-bedroom apartments in walkable transit-oriented communities the most affordable option? It still wouldn't be for everyone, but I bet that we would see demand adjust.
More importantly, it would give people options.
Charts from the Missing Middle Initiative; cover photo by Jason Ng on Unsplash
Erica Alini of The Globe and Mail just published this article called, "The era of the shoebox condo is over." You should read it, and not just because I'm quoted in it. One thing that I appreciate about the article is that it gets into some of the development economics underlying new projects.
The high-level math provided by Bryn Davidson of Lanefab (Vancouver) once again shows that land is the residual claimant in a pro forma and that the price developers can feasibly pay needs to be greater than the status-quo value. It's exactly what I was getting at in this recent post about the Impossible Toronto publication.
The other thing I'd like to highlight is the following chart showing the share of three-bedroom apartments in newly built condominiums and purpose-built rentals in the city:
What's interesting about this six-year period of completions is that there isn't a meaningful difference between condominiums and rentals. Average unit sizes as a whole tend to be slightly larger in rental projects, but in terms of the share of three-bedroom suites and the average size of those three-bedrooms, the differences aren't meaningful.
This suggests that it's less about investors "distorting" the market (see pundits talking about the condo market), and more about the fact that the demand isn't there. And the reason the demand isn't there is because these types of homes are expensive. If you can afford $5,000 per month in rent, you generally have some options.
Table from the Globe and Mail; cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash
Designed by Selma Masic — in collaboration with Sei Haganuma (Haryu Wood Studio) — the house sits on a 3-meter-wide lot, has a total area of 63 square meters across three floors (~678 square feet), and allegedly houses a family of four. Bridgestone also appears to be its immediate neighbor.
To put these dimensions into perspective, 3 meters is roughly the width of a “typical” new apartment living room here in Toronto. Usually, if you have a floor plate that can accommodate an outboard bedroom up at the glass, you design for a structural grid somewhere between 6–6.5 meters.
This gives you around 10 feet for the living room and around 10 feet for the bedroom. (As a a Canadian, it's important to always bounce back and forth between metric and imperial.) In this case, the entire lot is only 3 meters wide, though a corner lot always enhances a floor plan.
All of this is fascinating because, compared to North America, it represents a completely different way of conceptualizing space. Of course, the point of posts like this one is not to suggest that this is what all homes should be like. The point is that there are benefits to allowing those who would like such a home to be able to build it.
Cover photo by Selma Masic
What's interesting about this six-year period of completions is that there isn't a meaningful difference between condominiums and rentals. Average unit sizes as a whole tend to be slightly larger in rental projects, but in terms of the share of three-bedroom suites and the average size of those three-bedrooms, the differences aren't meaningful.
This suggests that it's less about investors "distorting" the market (see pundits talking about the condo market), and more about the fact that the demand isn't there. And the reason the demand isn't there is because these types of homes are expensive. If you can afford $5,000 per month in rent, you generally have some options.
Table from the Globe and Mail; cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash
Designed by Selma Masic — in collaboration with Sei Haganuma (Haryu Wood Studio) — the house sits on a 3-meter-wide lot, has a total area of 63 square meters across three floors (~678 square feet), and allegedly houses a family of four. Bridgestone also appears to be its immediate neighbor.
To put these dimensions into perspective, 3 meters is roughly the width of a “typical” new apartment living room here in Toronto. Usually, if you have a floor plate that can accommodate an outboard bedroom up at the glass, you design for a structural grid somewhere between 6–6.5 meters.
This gives you around 10 feet for the living room and around 10 feet for the bedroom. (As a a Canadian, it's important to always bounce back and forth between metric and imperial.) In this case, the entire lot is only 3 meters wide, though a corner lot always enhances a floor plan.
All of this is fascinating because, compared to North America, it represents a completely different way of conceptualizing space. Of course, the point of posts like this one is not to suggest that this is what all homes should be like. The point is that there are benefits to allowing those who would like such a home to be able to build it.
Cover photo by Selma Masic
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
