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.
Today on the blog, I thought we’d feature a new fourplex being developed here in Toronto at 2343 Gerrard Street East called The Walk-Up. Designed by Studio JCI and presented by Paul Johnston of Unique Urban Homes, this is the first in a series of “missing middle” projects now being developed by Urbinco.
Housed on your typical single-family lot, The Walk-Up is somewhere between 3-4 stories and has four homes: a garden suite, a ground suite, a center suite, and a sky suite. And each is family-oriented both in terms of design and size. They all have over 1,000 square feet of interior space, have two bedrooms, and have access to outdoor space.
In other words, it is exactly the kind of housing solution that Toronto needs a lot more of! Thankfully, this form of housing has been permitted (as-of-right) in Toronto since May 2023. Unfortunately, there are still many municipalities and politicians who don’t seem to get it. But that’s okay. This is usually how things go. Toronto leads, and then others follow.
Last week, the Canadian federal government announced that it will be developing a catalog of pre-approved housing designs in order to accelerate the delivery of new homes.
This is not a new idea. A similar approach was taken after the Second World War in order to quickly house veterans returning home. But in this current iteration, the catalog is expected to be focused on missing middle housing such as small multiplexes and student housing, and then later on higher-density construction.
We have also spoken about this idea before in the context of ADUs in Los Angeles. And at that time, I wrote that the way to encourage more of something is to reduce friction. I continue to believe that this is the case, and so I do think that pre-approved designs are a positive thing, especially for smaller projects.
However, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not the biggest barrier to new housing supply. The problem is not that developers and builders are all sitting around thinking “if only I had a design for a 5-unit multiplex.” The problem is that they’re sitting around thinking “if only I could make some money building a 5-unit multiplex.”
So while reducing the barriers to entry is a good thing, the really important question for the designs in this upcoming catalog is: Can developers actually make any money building them? Because if the answer is no, it doesn’t matter that they’re pre-approved and ready to go. They won’t be built.
Hopefully somebody is thinking about this because it will take some work. Every market is different. What works in one place, may not work in another. On top of this, what works today, may not work tomorrow.
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.
We talk a lot about “missing middle” housing on this blog and, most recently, we’ve been talking about Toronto’s proposed amendments to allow fourplexes across the city and to do away with density maximums (among other things).
Well, it’s now time to make a decision. These proposed changes are headed to Planning and Housing Committee on Thursday, April 27th. If you’d like to attend in person or virtually, here’s a copy of the public meeting notice.
The other option is to make a written submission. The good people over at “More Neighbours Toronto” have created this website which will allow you to quickly write the Committee.
There’s an auto-generated response in support of legalizing multiplex housing — and that’s what I used for my boring email submission — but, of course, you’re free to edit the text as you’d like.
If you check the agenda, you’ll see that there are already hundreds of email submissions in to the Committee, many of them coming from More Neighbours. Clearly this is a topic that, one way or the other, many people feel very strongly about.
The desire to add more housing to single-family neighborhoods will continue to pick up steam across North America. How exactly this plays out will be market specific, but in Toronto I expect to see new planning policies put in place, as well as supportive building code changes.
And this continues to happen. Right now, the City of Toronto is working on making fourplexes permissible in all low-rise neighborhoods across the city.
This is exciting. But it’s not done yet. And it’s not perfect.
The biggest change that I think still needs to happen is around maximum densities. If we actually want to encourage more missing middle housing, we need to increase the permitted FSIs or, better yet, remove them all together.
Urban planner Sean Galbraith does a good job of explaining this in NRU:
I responded to the city’s multiplex survey last night and this was one of my main comments. If you’d also like to voice your opinion, you have until March 10, 2023. Here’s the link.
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.
One of my favorite YouTube channels is the B1M. Apparently it is the most subscribed-to channel focused on construction. If you don’t already subscribe, you can do that over here.
Below is a recent video about Australia 108 in Melbourne. It’s still under construction, but it is topped out and it is now the tallest building in the country at over 300m. That makes it a “supertall.”
When you’re building this tall, it can make a lot of sense to segment and occupy portions of the building before construction is fully complete. Among other things, it helps to manage risk. And that’s exactly what they’ve done here.
The contractor building Australia 108 is Multiplex. They also happen to be our construction management partner on Junction House. Except our project is a bit more boutique than Australia 108.
Montreal is one of my favorite places on the planet. In fact, if I have one regret in life it’s that I didn’t do my undergrad at McGill University. Living in Montreal as a poor student would have been the best. Though I shouldn’t complain because I did spend quite a bit of time there when I was a poor student.
If you’ve ever been to Montreal, the image at the top of this post will look familiar. The urban landscape of Montreal–at least in the residential areas–is filled with exterior staircases. They’re all over the place. And this always strikes everybody as a bit odd given that it’s a pretty cold and snowy place a lot of the time. Nonetheless, those staircases are quintessentially Montreal.
Some people think it was done to minimize the amount of interior space that needed to be heated, but I’ve never really gotten a definitive answer. Either way, all those stairs are an interesting byproduct of Montreal’s commitment to one predominant building type: the multiplex. A multiplex is essentially a small apartment building containing a handful of units. They’re usually only around 3 storeys high. And they’re all over the Ville de Montréal.
To be honest though, I don’t think I’ve ever really explicitly thought about this defining Montreal quality. But then last night I stumbled upon an interesting blog post called “Les escaliers de Montréal vs towers of Toronto." (escaliers = stairs) In it the author talks about how Montreal is essentially this city of multiplexes (with stairs everywhere) and Toronto is this, more modern, city of towers surrounded by single family homes.
And here’s the data to back it up:
When it comes to single-detached houses and apartment buildings taller than 5 storeys, Toronto dominates. But when it comes to apartment buildings less 5 storeys, it’s all Montreal. And if you add in apartment duplexes, you’ve accounted for almost 75% of Montreal’s housing stock. Note: These figures are for the city proper and don’t include any amalgamated suburbs.
The author’s explanation for this comes down to zoning and timing. Since Montreal is an older city, the belief is that Montreal was simply further along in its evolution when formal land-use planning came into effect and started to order the city. I generally agree with this hypothesis, but I think it’s also worth keeping in mind that, just because a Toronto house might be zoned as single family, doesn’t mean it’s actually begin used as such.
A lot of the older houses in Toronto have been subdivided into what are effectively illegal multiplexes. Since this is all happening under the radar, nobody really knows what the actual stock of multiplexes might be. Nonetheless, there’s no denying that there are some real differences between the urban fabric of Montreal and Toronto.
