I’m an Architect and this is what Mayor Chow and Toronto are getting wrong about laneway homes
No one denies that there is a housing crisis, whether it is for affordable housing or housing affordability, we need more housing built that is attainable, sustainable and helps improve our quality of life.
Last week, the City of Toronto released “pre-approved” plans for laneway homes. This is, on the surface, a nice idea but let’s dig a little deeper.
Laneway homes are only ever going to be a niche approach to tackling the housing crisis. Since 2021, only about 200 permits have been issued; only 6 have been built in the last 2 years. They are also marketed, in some contexts, as an investment vehicle. An investor-driven real estate market has been partly responsible for some of the stratospheric growth in real estate prices over the last few years.
It was disappointing to hear Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow say, “The pre-approved plans are compliant with the Ontario Building Code and eliminate the need to hire an architect.” This suggests that Mayor Chow thinks that architects are responsible for both delays in getting building permits and that we add costs to a project, making them unaffordable.
Architects add value to projects: we de-risk projects and help solve problems. We address problems on paper before they become problems in the field, resolving questions that allow a homeowner to obtain their building permit, helping them navigate the complexity of planning approvals.
The “pre-approved” plans offer a few options and different layouts depending on access for firefighting. But they still need to be customized to suit a site: they don’t consider the placement of existing trees, or how a site might be sloped or have poor soil conditions.
These plans might meet the minimum building code requirements, but the Code is the very least we can do. Some parts of the designs that may cause early building failure; the drawings are missing information that may be needed to hire a contractor; they lack the details needed to build the drawings even if it is just enough to get a permit.
There are also quality of life issues: none of the plans include accessibility. While not being a code requirement, this can certainly be an important design consideration. One model, for a two bedroom suite, offers skylights instead of windows; while this might comply with code, having no view, and no means to open a window and get fresh air, affects one’s quality of life.
Another model offers a kitchen/dining space on the main level (with 7’-8” ceilings) and living space on the second floor with 2 bedrooms: is this the best use of space? Wouldn’t it make more sense to connect living spaces and find a way to offer better than “code minimum” ceiling height?
Ironically, the week before this announcement, Toronto City Council backtracked on a plan to allow 6-plex development in all wards. Only 9 of the 25 wards permit this moderate infill development as-of-right. If Council, and the mayor, were committed to density and affordability, this should have been approved across the board.
Tackling ways to address moderate density would have far greater impact on the creation of attainable housing.
Getting a building permit is often the least of the delays when it comes to building a home. Planning approvals (site plan control) is a provincially mandated requirement that is administered municipally. A recent report from the Ontario Association of Architects shows that planning approval in Ontario has skyrocketed in cost and time. A 6 month process in 2018 now takes 23 months while the cost has increased 10-fold; the total annual economic impact of delays is $3.5 billion.
Earlier this year, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) released a catalog of housing designs. These plans include ways to adapt homes for accessibility and take a more progressive approach to energy performance and sustainability. These plans present creative solutions for moderate infill density, including different types of secondary dwellings.
The City of Toronto needs a reset. Mayor Chow needs to recognize the value and role architects bring to projects and how investing in design saves money, reduces risks and creates better places for people. Advocating and promoting mediocre designs based on minimum code compliance does little to advance the sustainable, well designed, beautiful city we all aspire to.
Originally published in The Toronto Star.
Photo credits to Michael Peart.