Brandon Donnelly

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.

Subscribe

Tag: laneway housing

  • Seattle is building more accessory dwellings than single-family houses

    In 2019, Seattle made it easier to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Among other things, they started allowing two ADUs per lot, they stopped requiring the owner to live on site, and they stopped requiring off-street parking. The result is that the city is now permitting close to 1,000 ADUs per year (2022 figure). And for the first time ever, this figure now exceeds the number of permits issued for single-family houses.

    Part of what’s driving this adoption is that the City created 10 pre-approved plans that owners/builders can choose from. And since they were launched in September 2020, these plans have been permitted 130 times. (Los Angeles did something very similar with its “standard plan program.”)

    In general though, Seattle’s policies seem more permissive than what we have here in Toronto. According to this recent “annual report”, it is estimated that about 12% of ADUs in Seattle are licensed as short-term rentals. About a third are also being permitted as condominiums. In Toronto, any sort of severance is heavily discouraged. The objective was and is to create new rental housing.

    But for Seattle, this seems to be creating more affordable homes for sale. The median selling price for an ADU is apparently $732,000, compared to $1.2 million for a single-family house. This sounds kind of good.

    Image: The Seattle Times

  • A spectacular laneway retreat 11 years in the making

    The latest issue of Designlines magazine is about how Toronto is — finally — embracing laneway life. And one of the featured homes is none other than Mackay Laneway House. Pictured above is architect Gabriel Fain sitting on the front steps.

    As some of you will know, MLH took over a decade to get built. I first did a design for the house back in 2009. Laneway housing seemed like such an obvious opportunity, and so I designed a compact house that could fit neatly within the confines of my 25-foot-wide backyard.

    Technically, it was perfectly workable. But I could tell I was too early. After speaking with city staff, I immediately got the impression that this thing was not going to get approved. At least not now. So I shelved the project until 2017.

    By this time, it was clear that laneway housing was on its way to becoming a reality in Toronto. It was simply a matter of time. And so Gabriel Fain and I decided to come up with a new design and try our luck at the Committee of Adjustment (we needed, I think, over a dozen zoning variances).

    But it turns out that we were still too early. The project was immediately refused. After the decision, I had a few planning lawyers reach and offer to help me with a pro bono appeal. But I decided to wait until the new laneway policies came into force and the home could be built without any variances.

    And that’s exactly what we did. In the fall of 2020 we submitted for a building permit, and about 6 weeks later it arrived. The home was then built that winter and it went up on the market for rent in March 2021. It rented right away, even in the midst of intermittent COVID lockdowns.

    At this point, it’s hard to imagine that this form of housing was once illegal. Hundreds of permits have already been issued and this number is only going to increase. In fact, I believe that the humble laneway house is destined to become a defining characteristic of Toronto’s urban landscape.

    Toronto is finally embracing laneway life.

  • 6-unit missing middle site for sale in Toronto

    Marty over at Laneway Housing Advisors published this listing in his newsletter today. It’s for an entitled lot at 78 Gladstone Avenue in Toronto that has been approved (by way of a minor variance) for 6 units. Five units in the front where a house currently sits and one unit at the back in a standalone laneway suite. Though it also happens to be a corner lot and so the laneway suite isn’t really “in the back”.

    It’s listed for $2.5M. And according to the description, you can build about 5,500 square feet (4,200 sf in the front with a 1,300 sf laneway suite). This ask translates into a land cost that is just over $450 per buildable square foot, which is far more than what high-density land typically trades for in the city right now. This is usually the case for smaller low-rise sites.

    To help put this figure into some kind of context, Bullpen Consulting published in their latest insights report that the average high-density land price in Q4-2021 was $135 per buildable square foot in Toronto (416 area code only). Of course, averages only tell you so much. To truly evaluate the feasibility of a site like this, you’d need to create your own pro forma and do your own residual land value calculation. The value of development land depends on what you can build on it.

    If you were to do that, I suspect that you would discover at least two things: 1) you would find it challenging to make the numbers work, particularly for rental housing, and 2) you would quickly realize that this sort of “missing middle” housing isn’t, in its current form, some undiscovered bastion of housing affordability.

    Part of the problem is that these 6 units are not being delivered on an as-of-right basis. Somebody had to go out and entitle the land in order to secure these permissions. That means that time and money were spent and that the current owner is now rightly seeking a margin for their efforts. But if we collectively believe that this is an appropriate and sensible form of housing, then this should not be a necessary step in the whole process. Especially for only 6 units.

    All of this being said, we know that Toronto and many other cities around the world are taking a hard look at this issue. And that there is a groundswell of interest in allowing more housing in our low-rise communities. It’s going to be a battle — just look at how Toronto’s new garden suite policies have now been appealed by various resident’s groups. But I’m certain that we’ll get there, just like we are getting there with laneway housing and other types of ADUs.

  • Brampton is building a ton of secondary suites

    Here is an interesting housing chart from Ryerson University’s Centre for Urban Research (CUR) using data from CMHC:

    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?

    I think it depends on how we craft the policies.

  • Toronto is on the verge of finding the missing middle

    Toronto’s chief planner Gregg Lintern (who you can follow over here on Twitter) was recently in the Toronto Star talking about the city’s plans to allow more multi-unit dwellings in our low-rise single-family neighborhoods.

    I was careful to say “more” because they are already permissible in some areas. The challenge is that they’re not happening at any sort of meaningful scale, which is an obvious signal that some key ingredients are still missing.

    Or perhaps there are too many required ingredients. For example, right now the zoning by-law requires one car parking space for every dwelling in a multi-unit building. This is, of course, dumb and the requirement should be completely eliminated.

    Changes like this, as well as many others, are long overdue. Not just in Toronto, but in many other cities. And it is partially what I was getting at when I wrote about laneway housing this past weekend and hinted at the need for other solutions to increase housing supply.

    So when you have a few minutes, I would encourage you to complete the city’s survey on expanding permissions for multiplexes across the city. I just did it and voted to bring on the multiplexes.

    Photo by Tiago Rodrigues on Unsplash

  • Toronto has issued nearly 200 building permits for laneway suites — is that enough?

    We talk a lot on this blog about laneway housing and ADUs, including, of course, the one that Globizen built earlier this year. But beyond being exceedingly cool (see above), what has this policy change meant at the macro level? To what extent is it actually helping housing supply? Let’s consider Toronto.

    As a reminder, “laneway suites” became permissible in the former/old City of Toronto in 2018. The policies where then expanded to the entire city of Toronto in the summer of 2019. So we’ve had just over 2 years of this housing type being fully allowed city-wide.

    Though it’s worth keeping in mind that there are only so many laneways in Toronto (which is why “garden suites” are going to be important and may actually end up being more impactful):

    Between the introduction of laneway suites and June 2021, the City of Toronto received 306 permit applications to construct, of which 238 were associated with a unique address (the same address can have multiple permit applications).

    During this same time period, 183 permits were issued. 107 were still under review at the time this report was written. 15 were refused. And 1 was classified as “unknown”, which I guess means it got lost in the ether or under someone’s desk.

    Some of you will probably argue that this isn’t enough new housing for a city of 3 million people with high home prices, high demand, and high immigration. And I would agree.

    But it’s still early days, there will be an adoption curve, and the policies are still being tweaked to further remove some of the barriers associated with delivering this housing type. Of the 238 unique addresses that submitted a permit application, just over a quarter of them had an associated minor variance application, which means that they did not fully conform to the current laneway suite by-law.

    The most common obstacles appear to be the 1.5m laneway setback, the soft landscaping requirements, and the required fire access. But I know that there are others too. I could have used another foot or two in height on mine.

    But as I mentioned before, there are more areas in this city without laneways than with. And so garden suites are going to be an integral component of city-wide ADUs. This will certainly help the adoption curve.

    I continue to believe that these are all steps in the right direction and that this is an exciting time for Toronto. We are in the midst of transforming our laneways. But we’re not done yet. We’re going to have to make many other tough decisions in order to further increase housing supply. I’m positive we’ll get there.

  • Longer-term benefits of Airbnb for housing supply

    There is a commonly held view that short-term rentals (such as the ones you might find on platforms like Airbnb) are bad for housing affordability because they take long-term rentals out of the market and they help to drive up property values. And there’s evidence for this. A study published in Harvard Business Review found that home-sharing alone might be responsible for about 20% of the average annual rent increases across the US.

    Findings like these have encouraged municipalities around the world to put restrictions in place for STRs. But like most policy issues, there are nuances. And the thoughtful answers are rarely as obvious as they may initially seem. This has been part of my complaint around inclusionary zoning. It sounds good when politicians say it: let’s just get developers to build us free affordable housing. But again, there are nuances to consider.

    Short-term rentals are similar. A recent follow-up study that was again published in Harvard Business Review has actually uncovered some interesting longer-term benefits to STRs.

    Using residential permit data, Airbnb listings, and STR policies across the US, the team found that when you look over a longer time horizon, Airbnb listings actually tend to increase the supply of residential housing. On average, a 1% increase in Airbnb listings led to a 0.769% increase in permit applications. Supply is of course good for a whole host of reasons, one of which is boosting the local tax base.

    Conversely, they found that restricting STRs tended to reduce the supply of new housing and renovations. After new regulations were put in place affecting STRs, Airbnb listings fell on average by about 21% and residential permits fell by 10%.

    Restrictions also seem to have a direct impact on the construction of things like accessory dwelling units (laneway and garden suites for us here in Toronto). When analyzing data in and around the borders between jurisdictions in Los Angeles County, the researchers found that areas without STR regulations saw 17% more ADU permit applications compared to the areas that had restrictions.

    For the 15 US cities that the team studied, they conservatively estimated that STR restrictions reduced property values by about $2.8 billion and impacted tax revenues by about $40 million per year. Some cities, like Chicago, have also found success using STRs as an economic development strategy in distressed neighborhoods, which would further bolster the tax base.

    All of these findings suggest that a more nuanced approach to STR policies is probably merited.

    Photo by Andrea Davis on Unsplash

  • Pine Hill Homes launches call for artists to design new laneway house facade

    My realtor friend Mark Savel tagged me in this earlier today.

    Pine Hill Homes has recently completed a laneway suite here in Toronto and they have now put out a call for artists to come up with something creative for its front facade. I think this is a great / fun idea and so I’m sharing it today on the blog.

    I think it also speaks to one of the differences between laneway suites and the main houses that now host them. Could you imagine a builder doing a call to artists for the front facade of a house not on a laneway? It seems less likely to me. But I think that the laneway side is viewed as a little less precious, and that creates an opportunity for playfulness.

    This, in my mind, is a great thing.

    If you decide to participate and your work is selected, you’ll have all of your materials paid for and you’ll also get an honorarium. I don’t know how much the honorarium is, or where this house is actually located, but I’m sure you can find these things out by contacting Pine Hill.

    I’m looking forward to seeing what ultimately gets selected and put up.

  • 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.

  • 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