Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
Lyon is located at the confluence of two rivers: the Saône and the Rhône. And where these two rivers physically merge in the south is a neighborhood called La Confluence:
A former industrial area and urban renewal project since 1999, La Confluence is now home to world-class architecture, a broad mix of uses, and a club called Le Sucre.
The most important piece of architecture is probably the Musée des Confluences, which was designed by the Austrian firm Coop Himmeb(l)au. It is situated at the very southern tip of La Confluence.
And at the very south end of the museum is this column:
It feels like the exact right place for a column like this.
I just discovered and purchased a pair of pants from this French brand called 1083. They specialize in jeans and everything they sell is, for the most part, made in France.
The name 1083 refers to 1083 kilometers, which is the longest possible linear dimension within the “hexagon” of France (a hexagon is often used to describe the geographic boundaries of continental France).
As an example, their shoes have a message on the insoles that says “this shoe was produced within 1083km of where you are right now.” I thought this was a cool brand story and so I wanted to share it with all of you today.
One of the things that I have noticed while walking around Lyon is that there seems to be a lot of office space right at street level.
And most of it does not seem to have a consumer-facing element where people just walk in off the street.
There’s something nice about seeing beautiful spaces and people sitting at their desks (I walked past people sitting on exercise balls). It’s another way of animating the street.
Personally, I’d love to have an office right at ground level, similar to the above. But it’s not usually where our minds immediately go. We usually default to retail. Or at least I do.
So I’m going to work to remove this blind spot from my mental models. Office right on the street can clearly work really work.
This skinny 8-story building caught my eye in the Place des Terreaux in Lyon. I think a lot about these sort of small infill buildings because it is generally not how we build, today, in Toronto. But it’s a workhorse of a “fabric building”, and I can think of many streets that would be made better if only we encouraged this kind of built form. Truthfully, it’s probably most streets.
We landed in Lyon around 12:30 PM local time today. And it was about 15 degrees and sunny. This doesn’t bode well for fresh snow in the mountains. But it does bode well for getting a nice raccoon tan.
Our flights and connections were heavily delayed, and so I had started mentally preparing for the possibility of an overnight layover in Montreal. Thankfully, we managed to make our connection. Unfortunately, some of our skis didn’t. Hopefully they come tomorrow.
It’s for this reason that I usually throw an AirTag in my bag(s). It probably won’t help you get your delayed luggage any faster, but at least it gives you some peace of mind knowing where it is.
For whatever reason, I also slept really well on last night’s flight. I don’t generally sleep well on planes. So I’ve been up all day, and we’ve been eating our way through Lyon.
The general rule of thumb with these overnight European flights seems to be that you want to stay up as best you can once you arrive. If you nap, it’ll only prolong the adjustment period.
Our first meal was during that awkward time in between lunch and dinner when most restaurants are closed. But we went to Bistro Bondy (our hotel recommended it) and it was exactly what we needed. For dinner, we ended up at La Tête de Lard and it looked something like this:
There was a bit of cream and cheese involved in this meal and so, at this point, I am ready for bed. See you all tomorrow.
It’s that time of year again: the annual ski and snowboard trip.
Regular readers of this blog will know that this happens each and every year, provided a global pandemic isn’t currently underway. Last year we went to Park City and this year we’re off to Lyon and Les 3 Vallées. Is there anything better than urban + mountain? I don’t think so.
This year’s is also unique in that I selfishly upgraded it into a slash bachelor party for myself. And that’s why I’m calling it the 13th annual, plus.
So what should you expect on this blog for the next 10 days or so?
You should expect more travel, food, and snowboarding-related content, as well as more photos. I generally never travel without my Fujifilm. I’m also thinking about experimenting with more real-time posts, and possibly even multiple posts per day. Basically something more akin to a social feed. We’ll see if that happens.
Regardless, if beautiful European cities and sublime mountains aren’t your thing, you may want to check back in early February for our regularly scheduled city building programming.
Here is a mapping, from the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, showing the number of “closed” building permits issued in Toronto between 2013 and 2023 for both rear-yard suites (laneway houses and garden suites) and secondary suites (like basement apartments).
A “closed” building permit probably means that construction is complete. However, it is not uncommon for a permit to inadvertently remain open. This happened to me with Mackay Laneway House. The permit was supposed to be closed, but it wasn’t.
So here’s the same mapping with open (i.e. active) permits also turned on:
Three things immediately stand out:
Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.
Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.
North Toronto is wealthy and isn’t having either of these housing typologies.
Looking at these mappings, it probably seems like a decent amount of new housing. But that’s not really the case:
From 2013 to 2023, Toronto issued 2,209 building permits for secondary suites (1,525 have been closed and 684 remain open as of December 31, 2023).
And from 2020 to 2023, Toronto issued 898 building permits for rear-yard suites (192 have been closed and 706 remain open, which does suggest some increased adoption). Rear-yard suites only became permissible in 2018, which is why the date range is shorter.
To be fair, I would imagine that many secondary suites get built without a building permit. So I think the above number is probably underestimating actual supply. But even still, it doesn’t change the conclusion: A lot more needs to be done to increase the supply of new housing in Toronto.
Rental housing in France is both heavily regulated and supported through dedicated public funds. Here’s a high-level overview of what that means (via this 2021 Brookings case study by Arthur Acolin):
Homeownership rates in France went from 35% in 1954 to 56% in 2001
As of 2018, 58% of French households own, 40% rent, and the remaining 2% supposedly get free housing from either their employer or a family member
Not surprisingly, younger households are most likely to rent (the figure is > 60% for people aged 18-29)
Household size seems to play a major factor in how likely people are to live in public housing
France has some 4.5 million public housing units and 17% of all households live in them (which represents about 43% of all renter households)
Within the unsubsidized rental market, 93.5% of households live in homes owned by individual investors (this is as of 2013) and only about 3.5% live in homes owned by institutional investors
This is pretty typical of Europe, where multi-family isn’t an established real estate asset class like it is in North America; so for those of you who like to hate on individual condo investors, check out France
In the decade between 2010 and 2020, 28 metro regions in France adopted some form of rent control and, in a few markets, like Paris and Lille, there are also maximum rents that can be charged for specific housing types
If you’re interested in rental housing, Brookings also has articles covering the US, Germany, Spain, Japan, and the UK. They can be found here.
It is disappointing to me that we often vilify all condominiums as being “luxury condos.” I think the rhetoric is disingenuous and I think it distracts us from finding more productive solutions. As Mike Moffatt points out in this thread, if you look at virtually all major cities in Canada, the most affordable housing options are going to be condominiums and not low-rise freehold houses.
In his case, he looked at current for sale listings in London, Ontario, and found that for homes under $400k, about 81% of them were condominiums, and for homes over $1,200,000, only 4% of them were condominiums. Again: the real “luxury homes” are the low-rise houses that not the condos.
Now to be fair, John Pasalis is not wrong in responding to the thread and saying that on a per pound basis, or a per square foot basis, condominiums are actually more expensive. I’ve been saying this for years on the blog. When measured this way, mid-rise buildings are one of if not the most expensive housing typologies.
So John’s argument is that, while condominiums may be the more affordable option for 1-2 person households, if you’re a family in need of more space, low-rise housing is likely going to be more affordable for you on a per square foot basis. And I would agree with this statement.
The problem with this approach in the real world, though, is that people don’t buy and afford homes based on this metric. You can’t go to a bank and say, “I want to buy this house for $1.7 million dollars because it’s only $680 per square foot when I include the basement, and that’s better value than this 700 square foot condominium selling for $1,400 psf.”
Sorry, the bank is going to tell you what total price you can afford based on your income. And that’s why condominiums in our market have tended to serve as a critical entry point for first-time buyers. They’re the most affordable option in terms of their total sale price.
So in my view, labelling all condominiums as “luxury” is not exactly productive. It ignores their role in providing more affordable homes; it overlooks the supply constraint that low-rise houses represent in most of our cities; and it’s a distraction from the more systemic issue at hand: how do we make housing more affordable for everyone, including families?
