Tag: single family home

• Disease-breeding tenements

  What do you think of this beautiful low-rise apartment building? It is called Spadina Gardens and it was built (allegedly illegally) on Toronto’s Spadina Avenue in 1906, shortly before the City enacted an outright ban on “disease-breeding tenements” (i.e. apartment buildings) in all residential neighborhoods.

  This, of course, is a form of exclusionary zoning. Our predecessors had decided that apartments were bad, they promoted disease and immorality, and that they were likely to destroy or at least corrupt Toronto by making it, you know, less waspy.

  Important studies are underway here in Toronto, and across North America, to determine whether we should do something about this longstanding city building tradition. Should we allow a mixture of different housing types in our residential neighborhoods, or should we keep things just the way that they are? That being low-rise and single-family.

  In the meantime, we are implementing things like inclusionary zoning, which I guess makes some people feel better about themselves and the current state of affairs. But in the end, it sits very much on top of our exclusionary past.

  Low-rise single-family home neighborhoods remain off limits. Apartments should only go in select locations (provided they don’t bother the single-family homes). And any efforts to create greater affordability and diversity should only impact the new apartments and not the low-rise single-family homes that already exist.

  I would encourage all of you to have a listen to 99% Percent Invisible’s recent episode about Toronto’s “missing middle.” It does a great job explaining why Toronto looks and performs the way that it does today, and why it’s time that we do something about it. It’s also highly relevant to not just Toronto, but many cities across North America.

  2022.05.19

• Destructive development?

  I have many words, none of them suitable here. pic.twitter.com/at6cVQq7jU

  — Sean Hertel (@Sean_Hertel) April 2, 2022

  Planner Sean Hertel shared this (embedded above) on Twitter over the weekend. It is a lawn sign from Toronto’s Junction neighborhood that is calling for a stop to demolishing family houses for high rises.

  From what I can tell, this law sign is trying to communicate a few key messages.

  One, high-rises are monstrous beings that enjoy praying on innocent low-rise houses and squashing them with their feet, and sometimes their asymmetric hands.

  Two, it is mostly impossible to conceive of a world in Toronto where families live in high-rises and don’t live in grade-related housing with a backyard.

  And three, there is little value in building more, rather than less, housing in order to help with affordability concerns. Perhaps the thinking is that it needs to be low-rise affordable housing, or nothing.

  With all of this said, let’s do a little thought exercise today on the blog.

  Let’s for a second assume that there aren’t any high-rises proposed in the Junction; only European-scaled mid-rise buildings that sit on the area’s main avenues and back onto low-rise single-family neighborhoods. Let’s also assume that these buildings will be sculpted in complete deference to their rear neighbors so that things like shadows are minimized.

  Let’s assume that more housing is better than less housing.

  Finally, let’s assume that, get this, noble families may actually be able to live in mid-rise and high-rise buildings. And that there are already many successful examples of this taking place in the city, such as over here in CityPlace.

  What key messages would this lawn sign be then communicating?

  2022.04.03

• Price of a new condominium in Toronto increased 12.5% over the last year

  

  This morning BILD and Altus Group released their January 2019 new home sales figures for the Greater Toronto Area.

  Here are the highlights:

  • 1,362 new homes sold in January 2019 across the GTA. This is up 14% compared to last January.
  • Of these, 942 (~69%) were condominiums (includes low, mid, and high-rise, as well as townhouses). And 420 (~31%) were single-family homes (includes detached, semi-detached, and freehold townhouses).
  • Condominium sales volume is sitting only about 5% below the 10-year average and the benchmark price increased this month to $803,638, which represents a 12.5% year-over-year increase.
  • On the other hand, single-family home sales are down about 53% from the 10-year average and the benchmark price decreased by about 8.1% compared to last year. It is sitting at $1,130,046.

  While there continues to be a bifurcation in the new home market, we are seeing improvements across the board and the data is consistent with Altus’ prediction that 2019 will see an increase in overall sales.

  It is also important to consider how geography might factor into the above numbers. Here are the January sales numbers for the last three years broken down by region within the GTA:

  

  Just under 80% of the new condominiums sold last month took place in Toronto, whereas only about 1.2% of the single-family homes sold last month took place in the city. You can count them on one hand. There were only 5.

  So rather than just look at this in terms of housing type, I think the other way to interpret the data is that it could suggest strong and continued demand for centrally located and transit-oriented communities.

  And that just so happens to translate into a condominium.

  Photo by Eugene Aikimov on Unsplash

  2019.02.26

• Are you happy with where you live?

  

  This past weekend I saw a few people reacting on Twitter to this article by Wendell Cox talking about how Canadian families are being denied their preferred housing choice: the detached single family home.

  The fact that the article is by Wendell Cox should tell you everything you need to know. But essentially the argument is that misguided planning policies are driving up the cost of housing and that we should, instead, be encouraging unfettered sprawl.

  There’s lots to discuss here, but the first thought that actually came to mind was: “How would this article sound if we replaced all of the references to housing with references to cars?” In case you too are wondering that, this is how the first paragraph would read:

  A new poll by Sotheby’s International Realty suggests substantial disappointment among Canada’s young urban families, unable to afford to purchase the types of [cars] that they prefer. The poll determined that young urban households in Canada strongly prefer [Aston Martins], but they are often “motivated by (financial) necessity to purchases [sic] [cars], especially [BMWs], they do not prefer.“

  The article is clearly one-sided. I don’t disagree that there are people who – all things being equal – would prefer to raise a family in a ground-related single family home. Backyards serve a purpose, as do large basements equipped with beer fridges.

  But all things are not equal. And there also people who value walkability, a reasonable commute, and the kind of urban amenities that come along with being in a dense city. I am one of those people.

  Photo by Adrien Olichon on Unsplash

  2019.01.15

• Firm Profile: APOLLO Architects & Associates

  This afternoon my friend Gabriel, of Gabriel Fain Architects, sent me the work of APOLLO Architects & Associates. They are based in Japan and South Korea. Here is a preview of some of their “private houses”:

  

  There is a lot that I love about these homes. 

  I love their simplicity. Look at this handrail detail. Nothing more than what is absolutely necessary.

  

  I love their modesty. Many of the above homes hover around 150 square meters and many of them are much much smaller. 

  I love that each project’s description starts by talking about the owners and the site conditions, signaling that each home represents an individual response tailored to both the occupants and the context.

  And I love that many of these homes have been built on unthinkably small parcels of land in dense urban settings; parcels that would be dismissed as entirely useless in other parts of the world. 

  The site area for this home is 46.53 square meters and the building’s footprint is 36.93 square meters.

  Of course the Japanese housing market is a unique place. It’s worth pointing that out. 

  But as I browsed through what are effectively custom single family homes, I couldn’t help but be reminded that there’s a fine line between need and want.

  Small can be very beautiful. But small is also subjective.

  2018.07.25

• The density delusion

  Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox recently published a piece in the Orange County Register called, “California’s housing crisis and the density delusion.” I’m sure you can guess where this is going, even if you don’t follow the work of Joel Kotkin. But if you do, you will know that he is an ardent supporter of suburbia and the single-family home.

  Here is an excerpt from the article:

  In reality, the YIMBY’s suggestion that new, dense housing will improve affordability for all is patently absurd. Decades of densification in Los Angeles has seen ever higher rents, displacing low-income, especially minority households. Many former transit customers have been driven to lower-rent areas with less transit service, precipitating a massive decline in ridership, even as billions continue to be spent building new rail lines. The Wiener Bill [my link, not theirs] could exacerbate this trend, and likely increase the need for low-income housing, already well beyond the capability of public coffers.

  I fully appreciate the argument that high-density housing isn’t for everyone and that we shouldn’t be “forcing everyone back to the ‘glory’ days of the city of tenements.” But I disagree with many of their points, including the argument that density doesn’t encourage transit ridership. Density isn’t everything, but it’s an important something.

  The article is definitely worth a read, particularly if you disagree with their positions. That’s how you avoid confirmation bias. I was trying to keep that in mind as I read it. Maybe it worked.

  2018.03.14

• Rethinking the backyard from Seattle to Toronto

  

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

  The Urbanist recently published a guest post, called Let Us Build Backyard Cottages, that sounds a lot like a post I wrote a few years ago, called Why It’s Next to Impossible to Get a Laneway House Built in Toronto.

  It’s the same story: buy house; see opportunity to build low-cost well-designed backyard cottage (or laneway house); discover the countless obstacles in front of you; give up until the land use policies become more favorable.

  Here’s the Seattle version of the story (via The Urbanist):

  I bought my home in 2014 with the intent of building a backyard cottage on the property. The property is a mere 4,080 square feet, with a large flat backyard that is mostly wasted space. The plan was to buy a small, prefabricated, and super-insulated (to Passive House standards) house. We would install it and move into it while we brought the main house up to Passive House standards as well, adding insulation and ventilation. We would then move into the main house while my parents (who are currently living on the East Coast, and want to move closer to us) move into the backyard cottage.
  

  Unfortunately, Seattle’s backyard cottage requirements proved too onerous for us to move forward with building one. The requirement of an additional parking space was a bit irritating (especially considering that my family lives car-free near the future Roosevelt light rail station), despite the fact that we do technically have two parking spaces. But more frustrating than that, it was the owner-occupancy requirement that made us scrap our backyard cottage plans.

  What I find interesting about all of this is that the same narrative is happening in multiple cities, from Seattle to Toronto. That, again, suggests to me that change is likely inevitable. Especially since Seattle seems further ahead in this regard compared to Toronto. Change is happening.

  Of course, there are differences between accessory dwelling units (what The Urbanist wrote about) and independent laneway housing (what I wrote about). But I would classify them as being in the same family of urban change.

  Most North American cities are clinging to a specific kind of single family housing typology. I can appreciate why. But I believe that there will be a tipping point.

  I’m not sure that this year will be the year. Which is why I didn’t include laneway housing in my list of 10 city building predictions for 2016. But I think it will happen in the shorter term.

  2016.02.03

• Rethinking single family neighborhoods

  

  Earlier this week a good friend of mine sent me a scanned article from this month’s issue of Urban Land Magazine called: Rethinking PADs–Private Accessory Dwellings. He said, I know you have a thing for PADs, so here you go. 

  PADs, or private accessory dwellings, is simply another term for nanny flat or laneway house. Whatever you want to call it, the concept is the same. It’s about taking a single family house and adding an additional dwelling onto that same lot. 

  In many cities around the world, this is not allowed. Each lot is to have only one dwelling unit. And that’s because the single family home – particularly in North America – has been considered sacrosanct.

  But as I’ve argued and demonstrated before, I think we’re on the cusp of this changing. Here’s a snippet from the Urban Land article (unfortunately, I don’t think the full article is available online):

  “If PADs can be added in appropriate scale and number, existing housing, zoned land, and current infrastructure could be efficiently used to increase housing supply and to stabilize and even reduce housing prices. Moreover, since PADs are by definition smaller than existing dwellings, they will attract both younger and older residents who will enrich the intergenerational composition of both urban and suburban communities.”

  I’m happy to see Urban Land (the magazine of the Urban Land Institute) giving this topic some air time. There are a number of social, economic, and environmental benefits to intensifying single family neighborhoods. And the most progressive cities in the world are already doing it.

  What is your city’s position on accessory dwellings? Toronto doesn’t support them. But there are instances where people have gotten them approved.

  Image: Kensington Market Laneway House, Toronto via Flickr

  2015.02.22