Back in the spring, I wrote about a small social housing project in Paris at 18 rue Pradier. And the reason I wrote about it is because it's one of those beautiful European projects that makes every city builder in North America wonder: Why don't we build projects like this?
I mean, it's nicer than most market-rate housing projects.
As part of my post, I did some internet sleuthing to find out the site area, the gross construction area, and what appeared to be the land price. But it was a modest piece. Thankfully, developer Brendan Whitsitt (of Imprint Development) just published a far more comprehensive summary of the project.
In it, he pieces together the building's mechanical systems, the wall assemblies, the project costs, and even the capital stack. He also compares everything back to what's typical and allowable by code here in Toronto. It's well worth a read.
Back in the spring, I wrote about a small social housing project in Paris at 18 rue Pradier. And the reason I wrote about it is because it's one of those beautiful European projects that makes every city builder in North America wonder: Why don't we build projects like this?
I mean, it's nicer than most market-rate housing projects.
As part of my post, I did some internet sleuthing to find out the site area, the gross construction area, and what appeared to be the land price. But it was a modest piece. Thankfully, developer Brendan Whitsitt (of Imprint Development) just published a far more comprehensive summary of the project.
In it, he pieces together the building's mechanical systems, the wall assemblies, the project costs, and even the capital stack. He also compares everything back to what's typical and allowable by code here in Toronto. It's well worth a read.
However, I am going to spoil the punchline: Building in Europe is not cheaper. 18 rue Pradier is a beautiful — but very expensive — project. It only works because of subsidies. No private-sector developer would build it otherwise.
I'm good friends with Gabriel Fain (of Gabriel Fain Architects) and Francesco Valente-Gorjup and Aleris Rodgers (of Studio VAARO). Gabriel, Francesco, and I all went to architecture school together (undergrad). Gabriel is the architect behind Mackay Laneway House. And the three of us are really good about staying in touch, and taking group photos so we can document our aging.
One of the many differences between Canada and the US is that our roads are less deadly. A new study by the US Insurance Institute of Highway Safety and the Canadian Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that between 2010 and 2020, total road deaths in the US rose 18%, while in Canada they declined 22%.
This "crash gap" also widens when you look at deaths per vehicle mile driven (as opposed to per capita), which should, in theory, normalize the fact that Americans tend to drive more on average than Canadians. So why might this be? Both countries are broadly car-oriented, at least compared to the rest of the world.
The study presents a number of possible explanations: Canada has stricter drunk driving laws, Canada uses more traffic cameras, Canadians are relatively poorer and therefore drive less, Canada has higher gas taxes (which discourage driving), and the list goes.
But my unproven theory is that a lot of this gap can be explained by differences in the built environment. Solutions like traffic cameras are, to give just one example, what you do when you've failed to design the road you actually want. They're patches, not fixes.
So when it comes to Canada vs. the US, I suspect that much of the gap can be explained by differences in the physical environment and higher transit usage north of the border. It probably also explains why Canada is safer than the US, but not safer than Europe when it comes to transportation-related fatalities. We're simply not urban enough.
The simple takeaway is that the more you optimize your environment for cars, the more dangerous you make it for humans.
That said, this is likely to change with the continued adoption of autonomous vehicles. We can (and should) debate whether it's prudent to plan our cities around them, but I think there's little doubt that we'll see road safety increase dramatically.
However, I am going to spoil the punchline: Building in Europe is not cheaper. 18 rue Pradier is a beautiful — but very expensive — project. It only works because of subsidies. No private-sector developer would build it otherwise.
I'm good friends with Gabriel Fain (of Gabriel Fain Architects) and Francesco Valente-Gorjup and Aleris Rodgers (of Studio VAARO). Gabriel, Francesco, and I all went to architecture school together (undergrad). Gabriel is the architect behind Mackay Laneway House. And the three of us are really good about staying in touch, and taking group photos so we can document our aging.
One of the many differences between Canada and the US is that our roads are less deadly. A new study by the US Insurance Institute of Highway Safety and the Canadian Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that between 2010 and 2020, total road deaths in the US rose 18%, while in Canada they declined 22%.
This "crash gap" also widens when you look at deaths per vehicle mile driven (as opposed to per capita), which should, in theory, normalize the fact that Americans tend to drive more on average than Canadians. So why might this be? Both countries are broadly car-oriented, at least compared to the rest of the world.
The study presents a number of possible explanations: Canada has stricter drunk driving laws, Canada uses more traffic cameras, Canadians are relatively poorer and therefore drive less, Canada has higher gas taxes (which discourage driving), and the list goes.
But my unproven theory is that a lot of this gap can be explained by differences in the built environment. Solutions like traffic cameras are, to give just one example, what you do when you've failed to design the road you actually want. They're patches, not fixes.
So when it comes to Canada vs. the US, I suspect that much of the gap can be explained by differences in the physical environment and higher transit usage north of the border. It probably also explains why Canada is safer than the US, but not safer than Europe when it comes to transportation-related fatalities. We're simply not urban enough.
The simple takeaway is that the more you optimize your environment for cars, the more dangerous you make it for humans.
That said, this is likely to change with the continued adoption of autonomous vehicles. We can (and should) debate whether it's prudent to plan our cities around them, but I think there's little doubt that we'll see road safety increase dramatically.
Earlier this year, we were all hanging out when they told me that they were working on a research project with the Neptis Foundation called Impossible Toronto. They were authoring the project's inaugural publication and the goal was to explore a housing typology that could be suitable for the city — perhaps even highly desirable — but that is currently impossible to build.
As they were telling me about the project, they casually added, "Oh, and we volunteered you to help the team with development feasibility and financial modeling. We need you do a pro forma for the housing type we're proposing." If that's not true friendship, I don't know what is.
Well, that publication has landed from the printers. It's called Impossible Toronto: On the Courtyard — Learning from European Blocks. And it's beautiful (graphic design by Blok Design):
The full launch is set for October 3rd, 2025 here in Toronto (mark your calendars). At that point, hard copies will be available for sale and soft copies will be available as a free download. But even before then, I want to congratulate the team and everyone involved — there's a long list. This is important work for our great city.
I also very much enjoy the premise of the book and the series as a whole. Most bold ideas start out as impossible, until all of a sudden they're not. The best ideas, it has been said, are just on the right side of impossible.
And here's us 10 years later at my 40th birthday:
Earlier this year, we were all hanging out when they told me that they were working on a research project with the Neptis Foundation called Impossible Toronto. They were authoring the project's inaugural publication and the goal was to explore a housing typology that could be suitable for the city — perhaps even highly desirable — but that is currently impossible to build.
As they were telling me about the project, they casually added, "Oh, and we volunteered you to help the team with development feasibility and financial modeling. We need you do a pro forma for the housing type we're proposing." If that's not true friendship, I don't know what is.
Well, that publication has landed from the printers. It's called Impossible Toronto: On the Courtyard — Learning from European Blocks. And it's beautiful (graphic design by Blok Design):
The full launch is set for October 3rd, 2025 here in Toronto (mark your calendars). At that point, hard copies will be available for sale and soft copies will be available as a free download. But even before then, I want to congratulate the team and everyone involved — there's a long list. This is important work for our great city.
I also very much enjoy the premise of the book and the series as a whole. Most bold ideas start out as impossible, until all of a sudden they're not. The best ideas, it has been said, are just on the right side of impossible.
