Search results for: “laneway”

• Releasing the shackles on mid-rise development

  

  I love mid-rise buildings. I think they are an incredibly livable scale of housing, which is why I am looking forward to moving into Junction House when we begin occupancies next year. But as we have talked about many times before on the blog, the mid-rise economics are challenging in this city, which is why we also don’t have any other Avenue-style mid-rise projects in the pipeline right now. We haven’t been able to find land where the math works.

  Here are two excerpts from a recent Globe and Mail article — titled “Toronto’s mix of planning rules limits growth of mid-rise housing” — that speaks to this dynamic:

  For well over two decades, Toronto’s official plan has called for transit-oriented intensification along the “Avenues,” much of it expected in the form of mid-rise apartments that can be approved “as of right” – meaning without zoning or official plan appeals. Such buildings are often seen as more livable and human scale than 50- or 60-storey towers.

  Yet, ironically, the highly prescriptive Mid-Rise Guidelines – combined with skyrocketing land, labour and building costs, as well as timelines that can run to six years for a mid-sized building – have turned these projects into pyramid-shaped unicorns, often filled with deep, dark and narrow units dubbed “bowling alleys.”

  “The economics are so frail,” says architect Dermot Sweeny, founding principal of Sweeny & Co., who describes the angular plane requirements as “a massive cost” because they make the structure more complicated and expensive while reducing the amount of leasable or saleable floor space.

  The critiques extend beyond the industry. Professor of architecture Richard Sommer, former dean of the John H. Daniels Faculty of Landscape, Architecture and Design at the University of Toronto, describes the controls in the guidelines as “very crude.” “They’re built around a mindset of deference to low-rise communities.”

  My opinion is that, at a minimum, we need to revisit the “guidelines” that govern these kinds of projects and we need to make this scale of development “as-of-right.” In the same way that laneway suites work, where you simply apply for a building permit, we need to make it just as easy for mid-rise housing. There just too many barriers and too many opportunities for something to come up that could hold up the entire project for months or years.

  Building at a variety of scales is important for the fabric and vitality of our cities. Unfortunately, I have all but made up my mind that small doesn’t work unless it’s as-of-right. I would love to build another laneway house and I fully expect that to happen at some point in the near future. But I just can’t seem to get my head around another mid-rise building right now. I wish that wasn’t the case. And it’s certainly not because of a lack of effort.

  2021.06.25

• Toronto releases draft garden suite regulations

  As most of you know, laneway suites (a form of accessory dwelling unit) are permitted “as-of right” across the City of Toronto. This has led to an explosion of new laneway housing. One framing contractor that I know recently told me that he is now doing a new laneway house every month. Incredible considering how out-there they were only 10 years ago.

  However, there are a few barriers to participation with the current policies, one of which is that you need to be adjacent to a laneway in order to have an eligible lot. So the City has been working on adapting these policies to suit residential properties without a public lane. These new accessory dwelling units are being referred to as “garden suites.”

  The draft garden suite regulations are now available online and will be heard at Planning and Housing Committee next week. The recommendations are that these regulations form the basis for further community engagement, and that a final report be brought back to the Committee in Q4 of this year.

  This final report is expected to recommend Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law regulations so that garden suites, along with laneway suites, can be as-of-right across the city. This is great news. So if you have a lot without a public lane and you’re considering an ADU, now might be a good time to start planning.

  The best place to start doing that would be with these draft regulations.

  2021.06.21

• Make your voice heard in the City of Toronto’s “Garden + Suites” housing survey

  As many of you know, Toronto currently allows “laneway suites” across the entire city on an as-of-right basis. What this means is that no variances or special planning permissions are generally required to build. Assuming you meet the by-law, you can go straight to a building permit.

  This is how Mackay Laneway House was built and, though it required an extra layer of approvals from the forestry department because of a large on-site tree, getting a building permit was relatively straight forward. I think it took between 6-8 weeks from initial submission.

  As part of the City’s efforts to increase overall housing supply, another form of accessory dwelling unit is currently being studied: garden suites. Public consultations are now underway and, from what I have heard, the hope is to make these similarly as-of-right before the end of the year. Hopefully it’ll be earlier.

  I think this will be a positive thing for Toronto and so I would encourage all of you to complete the online garden suite survey that the City has open until June 1, 2021. Public consultation is an important part of the planning process and too often it is the voices of a few representing the views of many.

  So if you’ve got 5 minutes, now is your chance to speak up.

  2021.05.05

• Building on top in London — how airspace developers are creating new housing supply in a tight market

  

  London has a breed of specialist developers that are known as rooftop or airspace developers. What these developers do is build on top of existing and occupied buildings — mostly residential. Firm examples include Upspace and Apex Airspace. According to this recent WSJ article, the city is also making moves to relax regulations so that more of these top-ups can be completed.

  Brokerage Knight Frank estimates that in central London alone there are probably 23,000 buildings that could support a few extra floors, resulting in upwards of 41,000 new homes. I have done early feasibility studies for similar projects here in Toronto and they’re not simple to execute. But building structures are typically constructed with a factor of safety and so, in some/most cases, you can build a little on top without doing any additional reinforcing. (Note: I am not a structural engineer.)

  In any case, the benefits of airspace projects are obvious. You’re creating additional supply in a tight housing market like London. Similar to Toronto’s laneway housing program, it’s not going to completely solve the larger problem of affordable housing. But every bit of new housing helps, regardless of where it lands on the spectrum of affordability.

  One of the drawbacks, which is the headline of the above WSJ article, is that penthouse residents are getting demoted in the process. They’re going from penthouse to sub, or sub-sub, or sub-sub-sub penthouse. They also need to endure a bit of construction right above them. Cry me a river?

  But what is also important to point out is that there are lots of buildings out there which are facing capital expenditure shortfalls. They have maintenance and repair demands that simply aren’t adequately funded. Adding additional floors can be a way for these buildings to generate that cash and, in some cases, residents are even partnering with airspace developers to share in some of the profit upside.

  Not surprisingly, these sorts of arrangements are seemingly being met with a fair bit of support. Because in these instances, your options are basically as follows: Either you cut a repairs and maintenance check right now or you support a bit of development and then hopefully you’ll be the one receiving a check in the future. I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot more of this, not just in London, but in cities all around the world.

  Photo by Sometimes I Snap on Unsplash

  2021.04.17

• From back of house to front of house

  • 

  • 

  Daniel Foch, Daniel Clark, and Adam Darvay recently stopped by Mackay Laneway House to film a last-minute video tour before the new tenants move in. They had quite the rig setup (see above). There was also a drone flying around that is not pictured here. The full house tour should be available in about two weeks and I’ll be sure to share here on the blog.

  One of the things we talked about during the tour was the future of laneway housing in Toronto. Will we see strong adoption going forward and, if yes, what does that mean for Toronto’s laneways? I think we will continue to see a steady increase in the number of laneway suites that get built in Toronto each year. And so eventually this form of living will become a ubiquitous part of the urban landscape. It’s happening fast.

  Now consider what this could mean for Toronto’s laneways. As garages and parking spaces get slowly replaced by new housing, it will mean that our laneways could at some point flip from being vehicle first to pedestrian first. Mackay Laneway House does not have any vehicular parking. The front door is off the laneway. You enter on foot. That’s how you experience the lane. And Gabriel and I thought it should be celebrated.

  If or when this tipping point occurs, it will trigger a perception change. Slowly but surely we will start to think of our lanes not as back of house, but as front of house. And when that happens, it’ll almost certainly force us to rethink how we design them. Forget utilitarian. Our laneways have the potential to become some of the most pedestrian-friendly streets in the city, especially with a few streetscape and landscape improvements.

  Pushing this idea even further, could you imagine a world where our laneways not only become more front of house, but where the laneway side becomes the more desirable side of the property? If we gave people the option, how many would prefer to build their main house on what is today considered to be the backside? (Remember how things once flipped in Paris?)

  But for the fact that we have an entrenched built form that could make this “inversion” challenging, I think there are people who would prefer to have their front door on the quieter and more pedestrian-friendly side of their property. Either way, I continue to believe that we are in the early stages of an ADU/laneway housing revolution. And things are just getting started.

  2021.04.10

• To yield or not to yield

  If you’re building a multi-family rental building, you’re almost certainly building it “on spec.” What this means is that you’re building an empty building and, once it’s done, you will then work to rent it out. (Nobody rents an apartment years in advance.) In this scenario, you will know what your costs are once the building is complete, but you won’t really know what your revenue will be until you start leasing. If demand is strong and the market has moved since you started building, maybe your rents will be a pleasant surprise. If the market has moved in the opposite direction since you started building, your rents might be an unfortunate surprise. The laneway house I recently completed is an example of a spec rental building. I built it without a tenant, but I assumed that I could rent it out upon completion. That proved to be true, but mind you it was only one unit. So it was relatively low risk.

  If you’re building an office building, it is bit more common to have some pre-leasing in place. Early on in my career, I worked on an office development where we started construction with about 25% of the leasing complete. This wasn’t enough for construction financing, but we saw that demand was strong and we needed to start right away in order to meet our lead tenant’s occupancy timing. And so we made the decision to go. We ran on equity for the first bit of construction, but once we completed enough leasing we were able to place our construction facility and lower the project’s overall equity requirement. We took a chance and everything ended up working out okay. But it could have not worked out. What would have happened if a pandemic hit after we started construction? Leasing activity would have completely stopped.

  If you’re building a condo building (at least in this city), you’ll likely be pre-selling your suites. You don’t necessarily have to do this. There are examples of well-capitalized condo developers building on spec without any pre-sales whatsoever. (Build, lock in your costs, and then sell.) But generally most developers will pre-sell, secure their construction financing, and then begin construction. In some ways this lowers your risks, as well overall systemic risk in the market. It also lowers your equity requirement as a developer. But it does create another possible risk. Once you pre-sell, you’re effectively locking in and capping your revenues. So you better have a very good handle on your costs. Otherwise you could be exposing yourself to cost escalations without any way to claw back some of your margins.

  The other thing to consider is whether you want to yield or not. Is it better to sell all of your suites as soon as possible (bird in hand) or sell only what you need, holdback the rest, and hope that prices increase going forward? I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer here. Some developers don’t want any market risk and so they take the bird in hand when they can. Other developers prefer to profit maximize and/or safeguard themselves against unforeseen costs, and so they sit on inventory. If you have unsold suites, you can always push revenues. Either way, what is hopefully clear from this post is that development is risky. This is just one example of some of the decisions that need to be made. There are countless others. Sometimes you’ll get it right. And sometimes you won’t. Hopefully the former happens more than the latter.

  2021.03.23

• Los Angeles adopts “standard plan program” to encourage ADU construction

  The city of Los Angeles has taken an interesting approach to accessory dwelling units (what we generally call laneway or garden suites here in Toronto). In an effort to streamline the approvals process and bolster the supply of housing in the city, they’ve gone out and pre-approved a series of “standard plans” that you can quickly implement on your property. The idea here is that all of their approved plans have already been checked for compliance with the various building codes. So those reviews don’t need to happen before a permit can be issued (though the building department would still need to review any site-specific conditions).

  What that means is that if you’re in the market for, say, a one-storey, one-bedroom ADU at around 450 sf, you can simply scroll through their list and find the one you like the most. Here is one that fits this criteria by Design, Bitches (I just wanted to mention this firm name). The potential downside of this approach is that it could encourage less architectural experimentation. On the flipside, many of their approved designs are really nice and so maybe it’s a boon for those who are lacking in good taste. Either way, if you want to encourage more of something, the way to do that is to reduce friction.

  To start to give you a sense of how meaningful this could become, the city of Los Angeles received 1,980 applications for ADU construction back in 2017. This is the year in which the state changed its regulations so that ADUs were no longer prohibited in some municipalities (I don’t know all of the specifics truthfully). Last year, LA saw 5,374 applications and I suspect the number will be even higher this year. Should other cities look at pre-approving certain designs? And could this be an approach used for even larger building typologies? Speed is good.

  2021.03.12

• Compact housing for the future of our urban spaces

  

  “Unexpected approaches for the future of our urban spaces.” Publisher Gestalten has a new book out that you can pre-order called, Vertical Living: Compact Architecture for Urban Spaces. The book is not about tall buildings, despite what the title might suggest, but rather about “impossibly slender homes” in narrow and tight urban spaces. As many of you know, I have long been a fan of compact and creative homes. One, they force creativity. It’s like designing a boat (not that I have done that before). Every inch matters. And two, it is about seeing opportunity where others don’t.

  Sometimes we miss these opportunities because of cultural biases. We believe that a home should look and behave a certain way. But these viewpoints are not necessarily universal. They vary across cities and they can even vary within cities. As Toronto and many other cities around the world try and figure out how to deliver the so-called “missing middle,” we are going to need to open ourselves up to some of what’s in this book — namely the unexpected. New housing solutions that don’t fit within certain neat and tidy definitions.

  We’ve done this before with laneway suites. Formerly an illegal housing type, Toronto is now in the midst of what feels like a laneway housing boom. I don’t know exactly how many are under construction or have been completed under the city’s new policies, but I would wager that the uptake has been strong. And over time, this new housing typology is going to reshape how we think about our laneways. They will evolve along with the new uses that are now beginning to flank them. The unexpected will become the expected.

  Shall we try this again?

  Image: Gestalten

  2021.01.24

• The development value chain

  When I was in graduate school, my plan was to create a vertically integrated design and development company. I loved designing things and wanted to remain close to those sorts of details, but I had already decided that I wasn’t going to be an architect in the traditional sense and that I was going to be a developer. And so my objective was to figure out a way to combine everything under one roof. How could we be designers, but also be the entrepreneurs that make buildings happen?

  In some ways, Mackay Laneway House is a manifestation of that model. Through a partnership with Gabriel Fain Architects, we (Globizen Studio) have been heavily involved on the design side. Gabriel did all of the drawings and the overall architecture, but we weighed in (more than your typical client), selected most of the FF&E, and even designed things like the kitchen (with Scavolini) and the exterior signage. I wouldn’t call it true vertical integration, but we did start to blur the lines between architect/designer and developer.

  One of the interesting things about this approach is that it begins to create some consistency and a bit of a branded product. The hope is that when Mackay Laneway House is fully complete, it will read as a Globizen project, which is not that dissimilar from what David Wex of Urban Capital was talking about in this recent podcast. Their projects are a specific kind of product. They generally repeat it, and if that’s not what you’re interested in, then you don’t buy an Urban Capital home.

  But this also raises an important question: what is the role of architects and architecture in the case of buildings as very specific products? (This is something that we have discussed before on the blog.) Is the job of the architect to create an interesting exterior shell that then gets populated on the inside by a specific product offering? Or is it even worse, is architecture sometimes just an “empty vessel” that gets interior design and a brand slapped onto it? In some cases and with some projects, it does feel this way.

  I am a firm believer in the value of architecture and design. An “empty vessel” is not architecture. It is, well, an empty vessel. And that is not what I aim for in any of the projects that I’m involved in. Creativity, function, thoughtfulness and, yes, beauty, are all important. At the same time, I think this is a valuable debate. These sorts of questions are helpful in dissecting the architecture/development value chain. And so I would be interested in hearing your thoughts in the comment section below.

  2021.01.23

• Finding an audience (on Facebook)

  Social media can be both fun and useful. Over the weekend, we were exploring a few different design options for an address sign at Mackay Laneway House and so I posted this image on Twitter and storied it on Instagram. I got a bunch of responses, as well as some great suggestions. And we ultimately ended up making a small change to the design. That process was both fun and useful. The final design is now out for pricing and production.

  

  But as we all know, there is also a dark side to social media. The algorithms that power social media have been optimized to amplify whatever drives the most engagement. Oftentimes that means whatever gets people the most enraged. In this recent NY Times article, Stuart A. Thompson and Charlie Warzel make a compelling argument that Facebook has actually been coaxing many Americans into taking more extreme views on the platform — it made them more popular.

  And we’re not talking about extreme views on home address signs.

  2021.01.18