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.
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.
As per tradition around here, I like to bookend the new year with two posts: a post that revisits my random predictions for the year and a post that talks about what might happen in the year to follow. Today’s post is the former. So let’s see how I did:
I thought the interest rate hikes would come to an end in Q1-2023. But that didn’t happen until the summer. I also thought this would lead to a mild recession in Canada. Technically, we are not actually in one, but according to some, we kind of are.
I thought the real estate sector would start seeing some distress in the first half of the year, and that a new equilibrium would be found in the second half. This proved to be overly optimistic in terms of timing. A lot ended up being on pause for the entire year, and I now think that my forecast was at least a year too early. The sea change is still underway.
Given the overall slowdown in real estate, I felt that construction costs had to see some softening. This did, in fact, happen with some of the “earlier trades”, such as shoring and excavation, and we did see some specific trade pricing, such as concrete formwork, come down by as much as 30%. The smart cost consultants we work with now expect to see overall hard costs come down by a further 5-6% next year in Toronto. This makes sense given construction starts are way down.
With me expecting the interest rate increases to stop in Q1, I thought that pre-construction condominium sales would return in a meaningful way by the spring. While we did see some buoyancy around that time, it was short lived. Sales remained nearly shutoff for the entire year, but for maybe a handful of projects. The more successful projects tended to be outside of the Toronto core and at lower price points.
With respect to home prices in more tertiary/fringe markets, my sense then, as it is now, was that these prices would remain below the peaks for many years. In addition to the upward momentum created by low rates, my view was/is that some of this pricing was the result of a bet on urban decentralization. I don’t think that has played out as many expected it to, so that’s why I think it will be many years before the pricing we saw in early 2022 returns.
The momentum around “expanding housing options” in our low-rise neighborhoods is many years in the making. And a lot of progress was made in 2023. Here in Toronto, we adopted new multiplex policies that now allow fourplexes plus an accessory dwelling (so 5 homes in total) on an as-of-right basis. I continue to believe that this momentum is only going to grow. I also think we will see the arrival of more mixed-use opportunities.
I believed that, broadly speaking, urban transit ridership would remain below pre-pandemic levels for all of 2023. This proved to be the case for most US and Canadian cities. But things are improving. For Canada as a whole, it looks like we’ll see full recovery sometime in 2024 based on this trend line.
I thought 2023 was going to be the year I took my inaugural ride in an autonomous vehicle. Sadly, this didn’t happen. The sector as a whole also saw some setbacks. Hopefully I’ll get a chance next year.
I assumed that Apple would finally release its augmented reality device. And though they didn’t technically releaseVision Pro, they did announce it. So I guess that counts for something. I also thought that 2023 would be a big year for “phygital” goods. Maybe it was. Or maybe it was more of a building year. A lot of people are curious to see how Vision Pro does in 2024. It’s not set up for the mass market, just yet, but I think it will do exactly what it is supposed to once it’s out in the wild.
Finally, crypto. I know that a lot of you like to skip over these posts, but it is something that I feel strongly about. A year ago, though, I was pretty bearish on Solana. Boy was I wrong. Solana ended the year as the best performing major crypto asset — up 933% at the time of writing this. Oops! However, Ether is also +91%, and I continued to dollar-cost average in all throughout the year.
Next up: What will, or more accurately, what might happen in 2024.
This past week, New York City enacted a new short-term rental registration law that is not very friendly toward platforms like Airbnb and VRBO. Here are some of the new rules:
All hosts must register with the city
No more than 2 paying guests can stay in a short-term rental at one time, regardless of the size of the home (does this mean families are excluded?)
Hosts and visitors must leave all doors inside the dwelling unlocked (presumably this is to stop people from creating self-contained suites within a larger home)
And the host must be physically present while the dwelling is being rented
So in a way, this takes us back to the original use case of Airbnb: “Hey, I have extra space in my home. Would you like to rent this mostly clean air mattress in my living room and be my roommate for a bit?” Of course, this is not how most people like to Airbnb today. And so this is also a kind of ban on short-term rentals in New York City.
It’s certainly stricter than the regulations we have in Toronto. Here, it must be your principal residence. Meaning you’re only legally allowed to operate one short-term rental at a time. But you don’t need to be physically present while the home is being rented. If you want to earn some extra cash while you’re away in Rio de Janeiro for New Year’s Eve, you can do that.
However, the rules are still fairly strict. For instance, if you have a basement apartment or a laneway suite on your property, you are not technically permitted to short-term rent these dwellings, even if you live in the main portion of the home. It has to be your exact principal residence.
Presumably the intent behind this is to not remove any housing from the long-term rental market. And if it’s your principal residence, then yeah, there’s no net loss. Though this feels like an overreach to me. It’s the same property and a homeowner could very easily decide to not even do a long-term rental in these secondary suites.
But overall, I guess it’s still slightly more flexible than forcing hostel-like short-term rentals. Long live the hotel?
Yesterday evening I visited the future of Toronto’s neighborhoods. It is located at 367 Howland Avenue. And it takes the form of 10 homes on a lot that previously used to house only 1. Developed by Green Street Flats and designed by Craig Race Architecture, it is a near perfect example of what Toronto hopes to achieve with its new multiplex policies. As Craig put it last night, “we found the missing middle!”
Now to be fair, this is a double lot, measuring about 10m wide in total. And so this is twice the size of what the new policies now allow on a single lot — a fourplex plus a laneway suite or garden suite (4+1). But it is still generally consistent with what you could do today if you had two contiguous lots.
That said, this project predates the new multiplex policies, meaning it required a long list of zoning variances and it led to an inevitable fight with the neighbors. This small project required an 8-day contested hearing before it was granted approval! Start to finish, Howland took over 3 years.
That is ridiculous and so I think all of us should view the new multiplex policies as meaningful progress in our city. What was once contentious and a huge pain is now permissible as-of-right. Isn’t it funny how rules and perspectives change? “No, you can’t do this! Okay, now you can. Please do a lot of it.” So for the purposes of this post, let’s talk about Howland as if it were built on an as-of-right basis and you could do the same on your own lot if you were so inclined.
From a design perspective, the homes are organized as follows:
There’s a full-floor basement suite, a full-floor suite on the main level, two back-to-back two-storey upper suites, and then a laneway suite at the back. One reason for this configuration is that it means you never have to walk up more than one flight of stairs to get to your main living space. This was one of the design criteria and I think it works very well. Here’s an example of what this looks like (this is a suite #3):
For this particular site, the entrance to suite #4 is at the back of the fourplex and accessed via an adjacent laneway. But for the “inboard” fourplex, each suite is accessed via the main street. Once again, I think this all works very well. I just wonder if there could be an opportunity to shave additional costs by moving some of the circulation outside (kind of like this). I guess it would depend on the width of the lot.
Of course, the big question remains: Do projects of this scale actually make any money? Because if they don’t, then people aren’t going to continue building them. Though, I would say there are two ways to think about underwriting a project like this.
The first is from a 100% investment standpoint: build 5 homes, rent 5 homes, and then collect a reasonable risk-adjusted return. The second is a hybrid approach. Maybe it’s build 5 homes, rent 4 homes, and live in the other one. In this case, the math is likely a bit different. It could just be about subsidizing your living expenses as opposed to generating a commensurate return.
But in both cases, we know that these are very skinny projects. You need to be extra careful with your costs. And from what I gleaned last night, 6 or more suites is a better underwriting starting point (compared to 5). We also know that these projects only pencil with CMHC financing. Period. Full stop. If CMHC financing were to go away or meaningfully change, so to do these missing middle projects.
So as we look toward the future of housing in Toronto’s neighborhoods, we need to keep in mind that these projects happen very much on the margin (as does all development, but it’s an even thinner line here). Meaning it remains to be seen whether these will happen at scale across the city, which is now the hope. It’ll also be interesting to see if developers like Green Street don’t scale up over time. I suspect they will.
Congratulations to Green Street Flats, Craig Race Architecture, and the rest of the team on helping to pioneer this new housing typology. It’s a glimpse of the future and, judging by the turnout at last night’s open house, Toronto is ready for it.
This proposal by Dubbeldam Architecture + Design, called Incremental Density, is both an obvious step in the right direction and a problem. It is directionally right because it is exactly the kind of “gentle density” that we need and that many of us hope to see in our cities.
Four to six storeys, prototypically built on an as-of-right basis all across city, possibly by small-scale owner/developers. In fact, this approach is one of the things that Toronto’s new mayor, Olivia Chow, has been speaking about on her first day in the office:
Further, Chow said she wants to make it “easy and fast” for those who want to “build up” their single-family, often detached, homes to address what is known as the “missing middle” due to a history of “red tape” around zoning.
“What I’m saying is ‘build, build, build, build,’ up to four storeys if you want to have four units,” she said. “You can rent out three of them and some money right. Then you are creating more housing, and you’re earning some extra dollars,” she continued.
“So I want to unleash the power of the homeowner and say to them, ‘go build it,’ because we need housing right here now.”
Here’s the problem, though. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that at least a few people will not want 6 storeys beside them and their backyard. I mean, I struggled with a 2.5 storey laneway house for many years. (11 to be exact.)
So how do we get from where we are today to what you see above? It’s going to take some finessing. Maybe it’s only in specific areas and on certain sites to start, or maybe we need to gradually increase the massing over time. Either way, I too am ready to “build, build, build, build.”
Today, let’s look at the numbers in a bit more detail.
If you look at a zoning map of Toronto, you’ll see that many neighborhoods across the city have a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 0.6. What this means is that if you have a piece of land like this:
Lot width: 20′
Lot depth: 115′
Site area: 2,300 sf
Your total allowable gross floor area would be 1,380 square feet (0.6 x 2,300 sf).
If you build a laneway suite in this city, that won’t count towards your total allowable GFA (otherwise they’d be very challenging/impossible to build). But if you want to build something like a triplex or a fourplex, it counts.
The one important caveat is that if you’re building a residential building — that isn’t an apartment building with 5 or more homes — you can deduct the floor area of the basement:
This, of course, helps the situation. But it doesn’t solve all of our problems.
If you assume that the basement can be one home, that still only leaves 1,380 square feet for the other three, technically permissible, homes. This equals: 3 homes x 460 square feet.
Another option would be 2 homes x 690 square feet. But still, we’re not exactly making it easy to deliver more “family-sized homes” in the city.
And herein lies one of the problems (plural, because there are others). We can say that fourplexes are allowed across the city, but it may not actually be technically feasible or practical to build them.
Note: I am not a planner. If you are, leave a comment below.
Last week, Sierra Communities (developer) and my friend Gabriel Fain (architect of Mackay Laneway House fame) submitted the above development proposal for 2760 Dundas Street West in the Junction. It is a beautiful proposal. So not surprisingly, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Here are the first batch of comments from Urban Toronto:
It also happens to be one block west of our Junction House project, so I definitely would have been annoyed if somebody proposed something ugly here. I am 99.9% biased, but I think the Junction has some of the best new mid-rise buildings in the city. Presumably, this is what “Mrgeosim” was getting at with their comment about “the number of good proposals for this neighbourhood.”
But here’s the thing. This is a relatively small proposal. It’s a 6-storey mid-rise building with 28 new homes on top of a tiny 482 square meter site (16m frontage). This makes it a challenging new development to execute on. So the fact that this is required to go through the typical rezoning and site plan processes is, in my opinion, a painful problem.
We should be doing everything we can to encourage these kinds of new housing developments all across the city. And that necessarily means removing as many barriers as possible. A pair of development applications and a few community meetings may seem benign, but they’re not. They add time and real costs that then need to be passed onto future residents.
There is also a very valid question around what kind of development charges (or impact fees) we should be levying on projects of this scale. If you want to build a laneway suite in the City of Toronto, you can have the development charges deferred and eventually forgiven. Why? Because we want more rental housing and we have arguably recognized that it’s important for project feasibility.
Should the same apply if you’re building 2 new homes, or perhaps 28 new homes? At what point should the “impacts” kick in and the fees be levied? And might there be an argument that adding many new homes on top of small 482 square meter parcels is actually an incredibly efficient way of using existing public infrastructure? I think so.
Congratulations to the team on a beautiful proposal! I’m looking forward to this being our neighbor.
Michael Beach used to have a YouTube channel where he “looked at Google Maps a lot.” Meaning, he would pan around various cities and comment on their planning and overall built form. Technically the channel still exists, but he stopped making new videos a few years ago. Here is one where he talks about Dubai being “an absolute mess” (3.8 million views) and here is one where he looks at North York (in Toronto) and asks: “why is it here?”
The most important point from his North York video is that it illustrates the deep divide that exists in Toronto (and other North American cities) between single-family “Neighbourhoods” (a defined planning term) and higher-density transit nodes, where things like tall buildings are allowed to go.
In the case of North York, this contrast is perhaps at its most stark. Even the street network is designed to stop these two urban forms from commingling with each other too much. There are ring roads that surround the transit-oriented density, and separate, more suburban streets on the other side of it:
This contrast is why there are so many people talking about the “missing middle.” And I’m sure that if you started asking random people on the street, most would agree that it would be nice if we could build more moderately-scaled housing. You know, like those buildings you see in Paris.
The problem: Where should it go? Some people would probably suggest the left side of the above ring road. Just don’t build as tall, okay? But this kind of land is already a scarce commodity in a city like Toronto. We need these tall buildings because most of the city is codified to look like the right side of the above ring road.
So if we have any chance of actually finding the missing middle, it is going to need to happen here, on the right side. Some progress has been made, not just in Toronto but across North America, with accessory dwellings (laneway suites). But it’s not going to be enough.
This was simply a first step. It was us finding a solution to, “how can we add some more housing here without changing the look and feel and character of these residential streets in any way?” But even this small and incremental change has proven to be exceedingly controversial. People still react to new laneway suites like this:
If you’re a homeowner that decides to create a new rental home at the rear of your property, you might be viewed as greedy. You are creating something (a home) that someone needs, and you intend to make a small margin on the transaction. It’s like making and selling bread for a small margin, except that selling delicious bread to people is typically viewed in a positive light. On the other hand, ensuring that the value of your house remains as high as possible is generally good practice here. Greed doesn’t factor in this way because, you know, single-family homes.
There is no surprise why the missing middle is missing. It is missing because we have decided that we want it to be. But hey, $2,145 per month seems like a very reasonable price for a 2-bedroom house.
Earlier today, Toronto City Council voted 19-5 in favor of the new garden suite policies. This is great news, and something that I have been writing about since our laneway suite policies were first introduced and later expanded across the city in 2018-2019.
The simplest way of thinking about this new housing type is that they’re like laneway suites, except now the permissions have been expanded to include all of the properties that don’t have access to a lane. In other words, they are backyard cottages (also known as accessory dwelling units).
Not every property is going to be suitable for a garden suite, but these new policies do apply to all low-rise “Neighbourhoods” of Toronto. So this is yet another important milestone for what is ultimately a broader look at housing supply in our low-rise communities. Next on deck is likely to be more multi-unit dwellings.
If you’re interested in building a garden suite and would like to connect with an accomplished architect, I am most certainly not your best resource. I would recommend Gabriel Fain (the architect behind Mackay Laneway House) or Craig Race (an important pioneer/entrepreneur in this space).
What it shows is (1) the number of new housing using created through the addition of secondary suites, such as basement apartments and laneway suites; (2) the number of housing units lost to demolition or “deconversions”, such as when a duplex or triplex gets converted (back) to a single-family home; and then (3) the net new units added over the last three years.
In looking at the chart, you’ll see that the City of Toronto actually lost about 2,000 units from its existing housing stock between 2019 and 2021. Again, these numbers only consider what’s happening in the city’s existing low-rise residential housing stock. They don’t factor any of the housing supply being delivered through new condominiums and multi-family apartments.
Still, it’s evidence for something that is perhaps already well known: many of Toronto’s low-rise neighborhoods are losing people. They are losing people because the existing structures are housing fewer residents and they are losing people because we make it difficult to build new housing. We want them to be “stable.” But stable built form doesn’t necessarily mean that things aren’t changing on the inside.
Now compare this to what’s happening in Brampton (a suburb of Toronto). CUR is calling Brampton the land of secondary suites. Over the last three years, it added nearly 11,000 housing units and was on pace (at the time the data was published) to create nearly 6,000 last year alone (most of which are basement apartments). This is all within its existing housing stock.
With all of this, I think there’s an interesting question about about how much of this is being driven by market demand and how much of this is being driven by land use policies. There’s obviously demand for expensive single-family homes in Toronto, which is why “deconversions” are happening. But to what extent does this change if/when we become more permissive around multi-unit dwellings?
