Tag: condo

• Total work of art

  

  I toured 56 Leonard Street in New York today. The only picture I have on my phone is the above photo of the lobby. The rest of the photos are on my Fuji and so they’ll make their way to my Instagram over the coming days. 

  There’s lots that has already been said about the architecture of 56 Leonard, but one thing I wanted to point out was this idea of a “total work of art.” The German word for this: Gesamtkunstwerk. I’ve written about this before, here.

  With many/most development projects, there will be a separate architect and a separate interiors firm. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this approach, but it could lead to a disconnect between the exterior and interior. Or at least, some architects will tell you that.

  In the case of 56 Leonard, the architect (Herzog & de Meuron) also designed all of the interiors – right down to the kitchens, the sinks and tubs, the light fixtures, and likely a few other things. Hence the “total work of art.”

  It’s incredible to see what happens when you have one design sensibility brought to an entire project. 56 Leonard is beautiful. For the rest of the photos, make sure to follow me on Instagram.

  In case you’re wondering, the condo prices in the building run between $3,500 and $5,000 psf. One of the penthouses recently sold for USD$47 million.

  2016.11.04

• 3 obscure things to think about before buying a condo

  If you’re an architect, developer, or someone else in the business of building buildings, chances are you have an extensive mental list of things that you would think about before buying a piece of real estate. I know I certainly do. These are things you learn over time – sometimes by making mistakes.

  Depending on the type of real estate, this list would vary. So this is not going to be a comprehensive list of things to consider, by any means. But today I thought I would mention 3 things that a lot of people might not think about when buying a new condo, particularly when buying pre-construction off drawings.

  Noisy Adjacencies: 

  What’s around the suite? Elevator shafts, mechanical rooms, and gyms all create noise. There are measures to protect against all of these noises, but that doesn’t stop me from worrying about these sorts of things. For instance, in my experience, some (many?) condo gyms don’t have the right kind of floor to deal with dropping weights. In these cases, something is usually done after turnover to address the noise complaints.

  Exposed Overhangs: 

  Does the suite overhang the floor below or sit on top of a space that is exposed to the elements, such as a loading bay or walkway? If so, you might get a cold zone if it hasn’t been properly insulated or heat traced. Of course, most projecting condo balconies also create a thermal bridge that can create a cold zone around it. But the first example could be worse. If you live in a place that doesn’t have subarctic winters (Toronto) this may be a moot point.

  Transfer Floors: 

  The most efficient way to build a multi-family building is to repeat the same floor plan as you go up the building. This ensures that everything runs in a straight line. The minute you create stepbacks and offsets, you then need to start “transferring.” This means that structure and services will need to be brought from one location of the building to another. This can lead to deeper structural beams and additional bulkheads which could then impact ceiling heights in the suites. This won’t always be the case, but something to think about when you see dramatic changes in the building’s form next to your suite.

  Again, this is not a comprehensive list, but these are some of the small – perhaps anal – details that I would think about if I were buying a condo. Feel free to add other items in the comment section below. They don’t have to be anal-retentive in nature.

  If you’re on the building side, you work to get ahead of these issues by, for example, anticipating where you could need additional height for transfers and sound attenuation (such as around mechanical spaces). But buildings are complicated and sometimes things happen. It’s a long way from initial sketch to finished occupied building.

  2016.05.21

• What’s in a word? A lot.

  

  One of the things I try to be aware of is the language that I use to describe things. Because the words and conventions we use can impact how we perceive things and they can also reinforce certain inherent biases. (I have a good friend who is an expert on this topic, so he has heightened my awareness.)

  For instance, I find that we tend to equate home and house. In other words, we’ll use the descriptors detached house and detached home interchangeably. And when we say that someone is a homeowner, it can sometimes, or often, mean that they have purchased a house.

  The same does not seem to be true for apartments and condominiums. Rarely do I hear people say that they live in an apartment home or a condominium home. It’s just an apartment or condo.

  This is meaningful because the emotionally charged word is home. It signifies a subjective (and usually comforting) experience, whereas the word house, I would argue, represents a building typology. And so by conflating the two, I often feel that we’re promoting a cultural bias that privileges houses as the ideal building typology. A true home is a house.

  The other word that I often think about in my business is unit. When we talk about multi-family buildings we often – and I’m definitely guilty of this – refer to each suite as a unit. We’ll say things like: “This is a 200 unit building and the unit mix is as follows…”

  Again, I am absolutely guilty of this. But at the same time, I often think about how this word, unit, is probably the furthest thing away from a home. Who wants to live in a unit? That doesn’t sound very pleasant. In fact, it sounds clinical. People want to live in a home. Now that’s a word with positive psychological associations.

  And so by reducing each home to a unit, I think it could be making us lose sight of the fact that each suite will eventually be lived in by someone who will then make it their home. Yes they can be considered a customer who are paying for a product (a great place to live), but I don’t think that should take anything away from its homeyness. 

  I live in a condominium and it is my home. What about you?

  Image: Flickr

  2016.05.14

• Maximize your space with square foot hours

  I am more than happy to trade-off living space (that I don’t really need) for a better location. It means I get the benefit of driving less and enjoying the city more.

  But as more of us move to urban centers, we are finding ourselves having to do more with less space. Often this means creating flexible and multi-purpose spaces.

  One strategy for this that I really like – which I just learned about through 5 Kids 1 Condo – is the idea of square foot hours. Here’s how it works:

  “The concept behind ft²hours (square-foot hours) is to add a time-based measurement to how we assess and use our space. So if your 10′ x 12′ bedroom is used only eight hours a day (i.e., when you’re sleeping), your actual usage is 120 ft² divided by three (one-third of the day), which is just 40 ft²hours of used space.”

  In many ways, this happens intuitively. If you really want to maximize a space, you figure out how to use it more often throughout the day. But I like the idea of applying some math to it.

  Of course, this runs counter to the notion that some spaces should be reserved for specific uses. In the case of a bedroom, it’s sleeping and sex. This is so that your mind doesn’t start associating it with things like work, which might start to disrupt your quality of sleep. But perhaps that’s about to become an anachronism in the modern city.

  Without having the above formula in mind, I have thought along similar lines for my own apartment.

  When I think about where I spend most of my waking hours, it’s bouncing between the kitchen and the living room. And yet my kitchen isn’t up against the windows; it’s recessed towards the back. Instead, my bedroom – where the blinds are almost always drawn – got the windows. (Access to light is a code requirement.)

  If it were up to me, I would have flipped my bedroom and the kitchen. But typically in the real estate world, “recessed bedrooms” are considered less desirable. 

  I don’t think I’ve heard many people complain about a recessed kitchen, but maybe that will change once we start thinking more about things like square foot hours.

  2016.01.28

• Throwing butts

  For whatever reason, some of the people living in high-rise buildings believe that if you flick a cigarette butt off a balcony that it will magically disintegrate on the way down. It’s either that or they don’t give a shit about anyone else.

  Because if you happen to live in or manage a building which has patios or terraces at the base of tower, I bet you have this problem:

  

  Above is a picture of a Belmont cigarette burning through the tarp covering the wooden harvest table on my patio. 

  It’s a destruction of property, an environmental concern (many butts end up in stormwater drains), and a pretty scary fire hazard. I know of many incidences where thrown cigarette butts have started fires in a high-rise building. It happened last year in my mother’s building.

  However, the frustrating thing about this problem is that it’s exceptionally difficult to stop. I know this because I sit on the board of my condo building. The typical response is for management to send out notices to all the residents asking them to stop doing this. But frankly, that does nothing.

  So if any of you know of a company or service (or have a product idea) that can help with this, please contact me. But if no such company or service exists, I am positive that you could create it today and sell to almost every condo corporation and property management company that have a condition where terraces or patios sit below a tower. Because inevitably, there will be someone upstairs throwing butts.

  Many buildings have a similar issue with dog poo. People simply don’t pick up after their dogs. So some property managers have started taking stool samples of every dog who lives in the building. That way they can easily determine which residents aren’t picking up after their dogs. I guess that’s what it takes to get some people to give a shit.

  Of course, this isn’t a problem just in buildings. Cities in general are always fighting litter. That’s why you see ideas like this pop-up:

  #neatstreets, idea geniale per ridurre i mozziconi sulle strade pic.twitter.com/udbV7IH9AW

  — Else Project (@ElseProject_)

  October 14, 2015

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  This particular one (in London) was designed to stop people from throwing their cigarette butts on the street. Instead, you use your butt to vote. In this case: England vs. Australia.

  We talk a lot about big ideas here on Architect This City. What driverless cars will mean for cities, how laneway housing could help with housing affordability, and so on. But the smallest ideas can also matter a lot for city building. Sometimes we forget that.

  2015.11.04

• Should condo reserve fund balances be made publicly available?

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  I’ve been thinking a lot lately about condominium governance and how things might be improved.

  If you own a condominium, you pay a monthly maintenance fee. Let’s say, for example, you own a 833 square foot condo and your maintenance fee is $500 per month. That works out to be $0.60 per square foot.

  For a lot of people, this fee probably feels like a bit of a black hole. The money goes out every month and that’s the end of it.

  But as I explained here, a portion of that fee goes into the condo’s reserve fund to cover future capital expenditures. This is basically an investment you are making for the future benefit of the building.

  As an example, if you’re paying $500 per month, somewhere around 25% could be going towards your condo corporation’s reserve fund. That’s $125 per month. $1,500 per year. $7,500 over a 5 year period. And $15,000 over a 10 year period.

  Now this is an investment that you’re obliged to make, but one that you might not be around to directly benefit from if you decide to sell before capital expenditures are made using the money you’ve invested.

  Of course, if you’re a savvy buyer, you’re going to scrutinize the reserve fund and the corporation’s overall financials before you buy into a building. And sometimes the unit valuations do get deeply depressed by out of control maintenance fees and/or special assessments. So you could maybe argue (as an owner) that your reserve fund investment ends up getting recaptured in an eventual sale.

  But what I wonder is to what extent a properly funded reserve gets accurately reflected in the valuation of the individual units. I suspect not that well. And as far as I know, there isn’t great data on this metric. (If you know of anything, please share it in the comments.)

  It’s certainly important information to have and consider. Again, when you buy a condo unit you’re not only buying the unit itself, you’re also buying the future investments (and liabilities) that others have left before you.

  So what I really want to know: Why aren’t reserve fund balances and building studies made publicly available? This is not easy information to get today.

  But imagine what would happen if the market had full transparency. Imagine if you could see a map of every condo building in your city and sort by age and reserve fund balance. In theory, unit pricing would become more accurate. But even more than that, there would be significant opportunities for collective intelligence.

  Now all of a sudden buildings would be able to benchmark themselves against other buildings to see if their reserve fund is sufficient, as well as learn from other buildings with respect to their history of capital expenditures. It would also hold the building’s management more accountable and allow owners to easily see if the contracts in place are competitive with the overall market.

  I know that a lot of people get nervous when it comes to sharing information like this. I mean, what would happen if your building is underfunded relative to its peers? Would that pull down property values? It certainly could. But if you’re underfunded and you get stuck with a special assessment in 5 years, then your property values are going to drop regardless.

  So I would love to see a lot more condo information made available to the public for free. In my view the benefits outweigh the potential negatives, particularly if this were to be done at scale. Condo corporations are also non-profit entities, so it’s not as if their balance sheets and income statements are filled with sensitive trade secrets.

  But what do you think? Would you feel comfortable if your condo’s reserve fund balance was made available online to the public? Do you even know off the top of your head what the balance is for your own building? I would be curious to know.

  2015.10.29

• How small is too small?

  I was up early on Sunday morning and I tweeted this out:

  620 sf. Family of four. Could you do it? https://t.co/raV5Ha3NIi

  — Brandon G. Donnelly (@donnelly_b)

  October 25, 2015

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  It’s a link to a Dwell article about a New York family of four that lives in a 620 square foot apartment. It’s technically a one-bedroom apartment but the way they have it set up is that the two kids share the bedroom and the parents sleep in the living room similar to as if it were a studio apartment.

  And my question in the tweet was, could you do it?

  Part of the reason the article caught my attention was because I currently live in a 640 square foot apartment – but as a family of one. And not surprisingly it’s more than enough space for me. Would I still feel the same way if it were a family of two? I believe so. But what about if it were a family of 3 or 4? I suspect it wouldn’t be as effortless, though certainly not impossible.

  I love the idea of distilling one’s life down to only what is absolutely necessary. And if you happen to live in a city, like New York, where the median price of a one-bedroom apartment is somewhere around $3,400 per month, there can certainly be lifestyle advantages to doing more with less.

  So I’d like to re-ask the question here to the Architect This City community: Could you do it? How minimalist could you go?

  2015.10.26

• We are all selfish bastards

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  We are all selfish bastards when it comes to sharing road space and public space.

  When we drive, we complain about pedestrians jumping out in front of us, crazy cyclists who get in our way, and under-utilized bike lanes that are taking away valuable driving space and creating traffic jams.

  When we take surface transit (such as buses and streetcars), we want all the cars out of the way so that we can move more efficiently. And we complain about drivers who don’t stop to let us off and on when the streetcar doors open. (Toronto specific reference.)

  When we cycle, we complain about cars parked in the bike lanes, people who don’t look before changing lanes or opening their car doors, and drivers who honk at you because they just want you off the road and onto the sidewalk.

  And when we walk, we complain about cyclists who ride on the sidewalk (they should be on the road!), cars that don’t stop to let us go, and slow walking groups who linearly block the entire sidewalk so you can’t pass.

  We are never happy. And we automatically assume that we could do it better. (I know I’m guilty of this.)

  But here are a few things to consider the next time you’re flipping the bird to someone on the streets. Here are a few things that we do know about urban mobility.

  There is an unprecedented number of condominiums in the development pipeline right now in Toronto. For argument’s sake, let’s assume 75,000 condominium suites – many of which will be built in central areas of the city.

  At a parking ratio of 0.6 stalls per unit, which isn’t an unreasonable assumption today, that’s 45,000 new parking spots and potentially 45,000 new cars in the city. 

  If you think that 45,000 new cars will be able to get fully absorbed into the core and somehow move around in an unfettered way, then I believe you are mistaken. 

  If you think that there’s something that can be done to magically expand road capacity to handle all of these additional cars in the city, then I believe you are mistaken.

  And if you think that adding a bike lane is the only reason you are currently stuck in traffic, then I believe you are missing the bigger picture.

  Over a decade ago, we made a decision in this region to encourage building up, instead of building out. And along with that decision came a necessary rethink of how we get around. That transition is what we are living through right now.

  The other thing we know is that the 4 modes of mobility that I started this post with are ordered from least sustainable to most sustainable. 

  Electric self-driving vehicles will reduce the impacts of driving, but it will also transform it into something that feels more like transit and less like the driving we know today. That will be a very good thing.

  But I’m not yet convinced that it will solve all of our problems. To do that I think we will need to adopt a much more balanced and unselfish view of what it takes to move around a city. That, of course, isn’t always easy.

  2015.10.04

• The housing typologies of American cities

  Yesterday the Washington Post published a great chart showing the housing types of the 40 largest cities, by population, in the US. The list is ordered from lowest to highest according to the percentage of single-family houses in the city (green bar).

  Here’s the chart:

  

  Not surprisingly, many of the cities at the top of this list (meaning they have the lowest percentage of single-family houses) are in the older east coast cities. 

  It’s also interesting to see just how much the rowhouse dominates the urban landscape in Philadelphia and Baltimore. In Philadelphia, almost 60% of the housing stock is an attached rowhouse.

  Housing is the backdrop for such a big portion of our lives. And when you live in a particular kind of home, it impacts your life whether or not you realize it. The dense rowhouses of Philadelphia and the single-family houses of Oklahoma City are the result of two very different kinds of urban landscapes.

  In Toronto, that backdrop is in the midst of a dramatic change. More and more of us are now living in high-rise condos. That hasn’t always been the case, of course. It’s a recent shift. But it looks like it’ll be a big part of our future.

  2015.09.22

• America really is building very few condominiums

  On my way back from Philadelphia
  this past weekend I wrote a post called, The
  Philadelphia (real estate) story. It was about how opposite the market is
  in Philly compared to Toronto.

  After writing that post and
  because of a discussion in the comment section, I started thinking about condo
  vs. rental apartment development across the US. Because unlike cities such as
  Toronto and Vancouver, it struck me that – outside of maybe New York and Miami
  – most U.S. cities are really not building a lot of for sale condos. And if
  you’re from Toronto or Vancouver, I bet that feels odd to you.

  But what exactly is that number?

  As of the first quarter of 2015, condos as a percentage of all new
  multifamily (apartment) construction in the US was only 5.5%. That’s a tiny number and is down from
  over 50% before the Great Recession, which means most
  cities in the US really are building mostly rental. Last year the US built 264,000
  multifamily units across 11,000 buildings.

  

  So why is that happening?

  There appears to be a number of
  factors, according to a
  recent article in the Wall Street Journal.

  There’s a supply side
  constraint:

  Another obstacle cited by developers: construction loans. Matt
  Allen, chief
  operating officer of the Related Group, a developer based in Miami, said he can
  get a construction loan for roughly 75% of the cost of building an apartment
  complex. But lenders will cover only 50%, on average, of a condo complex’s cost
  because of the greater risk, he said.

  There’s a demand side
  constraint:

  As a result, the Federal Housing Administration, which
  backs mortgages made to low-wealth buyers, tightened its lending standards in a
  series of moves from 2008 to 2012. Under the new rules, in order for the FHA to
  insure mortgages in a given condo complex, at least half of the units must be
  owner-occupied and no more than half can be FHA-insured, among other
  requirements. For condo projects under development, at least 30% of units must
  be under contract for sale before the FHA will start backing mortgages there.
  Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tightened
  their standards as well.

  And there are macroeconomic
  factors:

  On the entry-level end, tepid job growth early in the
  recovery and the younger generation’s affinity for flexibility have fueled
  demand for rentals. Apartment rents are up nearly 16% since 2010, according to Reis Inc.

  Notwithstanding
  the above, could this be a post-recession policy pendulum that has swung
  too far in one direction?

  2015.08.20