Tag: toronto

• Les chambres de bonne

  

  This evening in French class we discussed a Parisian apartment type called the chambre de bonne. The direct translation is “maid’s room”, and it’s exactly what it sounds like. A small one-room apartment that is found on the top floor of bourgeoisie apartment buildings. Indeed, nearly one-third of Paris’ entire supply of chambres de bonne are in the wealthy 16th arrondissement.

  Their original function was to house servants. The reason they were on the penthouse floor is because, when they emerged in Paris in the 1830s, the elevator hadn’t yet been invented. And so this was the least desirable floor. The people staying in these rooms typically worked for the people living on the lowest floors in the same building. That’s where you wanted to be. Fewer stairs.

  Fast forward to today, and it is estimated that Paris has somewhere around 114,000 chambres be bonne (also known as chambres de service). They are also occupied by a broad cross section of different people:

  

  But it means living small. The smallest allowable size for an apartment in Paris is 9 m2 (area) or 20 m3 (volume). Meaning, even if the surface area is under the 9 m2 threshold, it might still be able to pass as livable if the ceilings are tall enough. But under these figures, and the place can’t be rented. And supposedly, about half of Paris’ chambres de bonne do not meet these minimum thresholds.

  These requirements are immediately interesting to me — not only because they’re much smaller than what we allow in Toronto — but because most people don’t think of real estate in terms of volumes. Ceiling heights, yes. But when have you ever seen or measured the volume of an apartment? It’s clearly appropriate in this instance given that many of these apartments sit under sloping rooflines.

  But the most interesting question, I think, is whether this housing type is functionally obsolete. On the one hand, Paris is an expensive city, and these apartments represent what is likely the most affordable housing option. Go on YouTube and you’ll find lots of students giving tours of their compact room-apartments. On the other hand, census data shows that occupancy within his housing type has been steadily declining since at least the 1960s:

  

  Based on these figures from 2011, only about 17,300 chambres de bonne are occupied as a principal residence. This doesn’t seem like a lot for a big city like Paris. (It’s around 1.25% of its entire housing supply based on my rough math.) The rest of these apartments appear to be vacant, ineligible for renting, or serving as a secondary space for owners in the same building.

  This represents an ~85% vacancy rate, which begs the question: Is there something more productive that Paris could be doing with all of this under-utilized penthouse space? Though perhaps it’s helpful to start with: would you live in 9 square meters or 97 square feet? This is smaller than the minimum size of a parking space in Toronto.

  Photo by Matt Boitor on Unsplash; Charts: Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme

  2024.04.10

• Work, untethered

  On Monday morning, I flew on Delta from Salt Lake City to Toronto, which in this direction takes just over 3 hours. And it was my first time ever experiencing reasonably reliable wi-fi on a flight. Maybe this is already common for the people who fly in the front of planes, but for me, I’ve never had the wi-fi work so well.

  Usually it goes like this: I try and connect, everything is painfully slow, and so I get frustrated and move on. But this time around, I was able to check all of my emails, download fairly large PDFs, mark them up on my iPad, and write yesterday’s blog post. It was pretty great, and it allowed me to land in Toronto with far less anxiety around my work backlog.

  But it also got me thinking about what this means for travel and work. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know that I greatly prefer working in an office with my team. I think proximity matters.

  At the same time, I recognize that technology is empowering new kinds of remote work, that we are all becoming more globally connected, and that, in the future, most of us are likely to travel more, rather than less. This will be for both work and for fun.

  While solid in-flight wi-fi may not seem like that big of a deal, in my mind it’s a game changer. People will become more mobile if they can sit on flights and actually be productive (and maybe Apple Vision Pro helps with this). It is another step in what feels like an ongoing untethering of work.

  2024.04.09

• Dangerously positive precedents

  This is the battle that is now playing out across Toronto — and many other cities — as we look to intensify our existing communities; even in the ones sitting on higher-order transit. Cities rightly want to see it happen. But local ratepayers do not.

  From the Globe and Mail:

  “This project is in no way gentle intensification,” said the architect Terry Montgomery, representing the powerful local group the Annex Residents Association. “It will set a dangerous precedent for all areas in the city which currently [are zoned for] low-scale residential-buildings.”

  It’s not clear whether that legal argument is true. At the meeting, City of Toronto planning manager David Driedger and director Oren Tamir – who, to their great credit, were supporting the development – said it would not set a precedent.

  But if it did, why would that be “dangerous”? It is commonsensical. The Lowther site has two subway stations within an eight-minute walk. Toronto’s Line 1 and Line 2 intersect right here. This is one of the best-located, best-connected places in all of Canada.

  Alex Bozikovic is, of course, right. This is commonsensical. 

  If our goals are to create more homes, improve housing affordability, reduce traffic congestion, and make us overall a more sustainable city, then there’s no better place to build than on top of transit within our already built-up areas.

  2024.04.08

• 25 years of transit-oriented development

  When we build next to transit, we often call this transit-oriented development. 

  What’s interesting about this moniker is that it implies we’re doing something a little special — something out of the ordinary. And I guess that makes sense because, in many cities, it is often out of the ordinary. 

  That’s why you don’t hear people at real estate conferences saying, “check out this new cutting edge car-oriented development that our firm is developing.” That doesn’t need to be specified.

  But at the end of the day, I’m not sure how special transit-oriented development really is; it’s basically just urban development. Meaning, you put density on top of and next to transit stations and then more people take transit. That’s how this works.

  On that note, here is an interesting study from the School of Cities that looked at Toronto’s transit network and how the populations around each station have changed (or not changed) between 1996 and 2021 (census data). 

  If you look at the various transit lines, you’ll see that, in some cases, like downtown, we have added a lot of new transit-oriented development. This is good. Populations increased. 

  But in many/most other cases, populations remained flat; or worse, they declined. This is a serious problem, and it shows how land use restrictions are forcing us to underutilize our existing transit assets.

  Maybe what we need to do is stop thinking about transit-oriented development as something special, and instead remind ourselves that this is standard operating procedure. It’s just what you do next to transit.

  Thanks to Sam Kulendran for sharing the above study with me.

  2024.04.04

• Office utilization continues to climb

  

  One of my arguments around return to office is that we have not yet reached a post-pandemic equilibrium. Meaning, we’re still in the process of coming back and it’s probably too early to say where exactly we will end up.

  The latest data (above) from the Strategic Regional Research Alliance (which is for Toronto) seems to suggest exactly this. Office occupancy continues to steadily increase from its low point in the middle of COVID.

  We are now seeing an average weekly occupancy of 63%, a low day occupancy (Friday) of 40%, and a peak day occupancy (Wednesday) of 73%. All of these figures are relative to the number of people working in offices prior to the pandemic.

  It is, once again, hard to say where this will ultimately settle. But my gut tells me that this climb still has a ways to go.

  2024.04.02

• The Walk-Up

  

  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.

  For more information on The Walk-Up, click here.

  2024.03.23

• We are close to home

  I don’t use Facebook anymore, but I was recently sent this. It is a post by a reporter for The West End Phoenix asking people from the community what they think of the JUNCTION sign on top of Junction House. As of right now, there are 217 comments and, if you scroll through them, you’ll see that they are actually overwhelmingly positive.

  Some people were critical of the fact that, depending on what you consider to be the boundaries of the Junction, this sign may or may not actually be in it. Some see Junction House as belonging to the West Bend neighborhood. So here is yet another real estate developer stretching boundaries and renaming neighborhoods.

  I don’t know, neighborhood boundaries are a funny thing. They’re often amorphous and they often change. Here’s what Google believes to be the boundaries of the Junction:

  

  As you can see from the map, the whole point of the sign was to mark one of the entrances to the neighborhood. Although, Junction House seems to sit on contested lands; Google Maps shows it as simultaneously belonging to the West Bend. Whatever the case, it is really great to see that the vast majority of people seem to love the sign.

  My favorite comment is this one here: “Love it. My kid recognizes it and always yells that we are close to home.” I mean, this was our hope. We wanted to create something that could become a symbol for the area, help to reinforce its existing identity, and also bring people delight. The fact that kids are loving it makes it that much better.

  Perhaps this is proof that we shouldn’t be so rigid when it comes to the design of our cities. A little color, and some LEDs that look like neon, can be a positive thing. Just ask the kids.

  2024.03.10

• Okay, fine, I support your laneway house

  This week, I received a notice in the mail that a neighbor to Mackay Laneway House is seeking variances for their own laneway house. I immediately thought to myself, “oh, the hypocrisy.” Here is a neighbor that vehemently opposed my Committee of Adjustment application back in 2017 and now wants to do something similar.

  It’s also not like you need minor variances in order to build a laneway house today. They are, as many of you know, permitted as-of-right. That’s how MLH was ultimately built. We went straight to building permit. But in this case, the request is for 7 variances to the current by-law. The build aspires to go above and beyond.

  As I’m sure you can imagine, there’s part of me that wants to be a real asshole here. But of course, that would run counter to many of the objectives that we regularly cover on this blog: more housing, revitalized laneways, and so on. So I can’t do that. It’s directionally the right city building move, and they have my full support.

  2024.03.09

• 4 predictions for Toronto’s laneways

  Brigitte Shim (of Shim-Sutcliffe Architects) invited Gabriel Fain and I to the Daniels Faculty this morning (at the University of Toronto) to talk about Mackay Laneway House.

  It was for a class on laneway housing and, as it turns out, some of the students had been using MLH as a case study. That’s pretty cool, although the primary lesson is probably “don’t build next to large trees.”

  Following the presentation, we had a good discussion about laneways, and it reminded me of some of the things that I believe to be true. More specifically, it reminded me of what I think will happen in the future:

  • Bona Fide Streets: Laneways will become bona fide streets. Meaning, they’ll get real names (most don’t have one today) and they’ll get serviced. Today, laneway suites are typically serviced via the main/existing house.
  • Severable Lots: Laneway lots will become severable. Right now this is strongly discouraged, because the intent is to create new rental housing and not new for-sale housing.
  • Market Inversion: Once these lots become severable, the market will then be able to decide which frontage is most valuable — the current street side or the laneway side. Maybe some get split right down the middle (50/50) or maybe some get biased toward one frontage. Either way, I think it will become common for the laneway frontage to be more desirable given its intimate scale and pedestrian orientation.
  • Mixed-Use: Non-residential uses will become allowed.

  I have no idea when all of this might happen, but I believe it will happen. So I wanted to write it down publicly.

  2024.03.07

• Population-weighted densities, compared

  Boy, population densities can be so misleading. The typical approach is to just take the number of people and divide it by a given area. This then gives you something like X number of “people per square kilometer.” The problem with this approach is that there are countless factors that can skew your result.

  Hong Kong, for instance, is really dense. But as a city, it also has a lot of green space, mountains, and other undeveloped areas. Only about a quarter of Hong Kong’s land is developed. So when you divide total people by its administrative boundary area, it is going to appear less dense than it really is.

  One alternative approach is to use a method known as population-weighted density. The way this works is that you take the average densities of smaller more granular subareas and then weight them by the population of each subarea. It is a little more complicated to calculate, but the overall intent is to try and capture a density figure that more accurately reflects what the average person experiences on the ground.

  And this is exactly the method that Jonathan Nolan decided to use in his new website CityDensity.com. What his site allows you to do is compare population-weighted densities across various cities, and then see how it tapers off as you move outward from their city centers.

  Once again, it is hard to beat Paris’ supremely dense mid-rise built form:

  

  Well, that is, until you check out Hong Kong:

  

  Charts: CityDensity.com

  2024.03.05