Family Sized Condos

[Klieg]

Research shows that living in car-dependent areas with high traffic affects children even before they are born. A study in Los Angeles County showed that pregnant women who live near busy highways and roads have a 10-20%increase in risk of having premature and low birth weight babies. A Denver study showed that children living within 250 yards of a road with 20,000 or more vehicles per day using it are eight times more likely to get leukemia and six times more likely to get other cancers because of exposure to car exhaust pollutants associated with cancer.

This sounds more like an argument in favour of living in the suburbs. Or on a farm.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

RBC/Pembina Institute Poll

Location Matters: Redefining living in the suburbs and the city

RBC/Pembina Institute study shows affordability and easy access to transit, work and services are a high priority in GTA neighbourhoods

TORONTO — The majority of Greater Toronto Area residents would prefer to live in a walkable and transit-accessible neighbourhood in the suburbs or the city that would better suit their day-to-day life, according to an RBC-Pembina Institute study.

The poll found that eight-in-10 GTA residents (79 per cent) said affordability influenced where they live. If cost were not an issue, 81 per cent of respondents indicated they would give up a large yard for a smaller lot or more modest home within walking distance to amenities, easy access to rapid transit and less time behind the wheel. Over half (54 per cent) would choose this type of location-efficient neighbourhood even if it was more expensive.

“The results of the survey indicate that there is a clear desire for more compact and family-friendly homes that are close to where people go everyday. Currently, many of these options are beyond most budgets,†said Cherise Burda, report author and Ontario policy director at Pembina Institute.

LINK

 

[W. K. Lis]

Another asset would be the mixed-use of buildings. Zoning in the suburbs restricts and separates mixing of commercial and residential, even though most people want to be close to both. They don't have to be in the same building or block, but within a short walking distance, at least. If there is no store or stores at the nearest bus stop, that is a NO checkmark in my preferences for a home.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

I love your assumption that there even *is* a bus stop in the burbs.

Seriously, many exurbs in the US are now moving to a new form of urbanism, to improve walkability etc. But, unlike the older areas which were streetcar suburbs built on grids (Leslieville, Riverdale, for example), too many areas have winding circles, crescents, dead ends etc. aimed at slowing down traffic and making walking unnecessarily inefficient.

Plus they have no sidewalks.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I love your assumption that there even *is* a bus stop in the burbs.

Seriously, many exurbs in the US are now moving to a new form of urbanism, to improve walkability etc. But, unlike the older areas which were streetcar suburbs built on grids (Leslieville, Riverdale, for example), too many areas have winding circles, crescents, dead ends etc. aimed at slowing down traffic and making walking unnecessarily inefficient.

Plus they have no sidewalks.

Worse would be the NIMBYs who rise up to oppose the installation of sidewalks in residential areas that did not have any before.

Which encourages walking?

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Sidewalks

I don't understand that at all. Is it because they are losing a bit of their front gardens? Or they're worried that walking will attract the wrong element. You know, like guys in hoodies packing Snickers and Iced Tea.

 

[Eug]

An important part of getting more families into condo's, and this is something Adam Vaughan is aware of, is changing the property tax system. The city has already begun this process by divvying it up into things like the Land Transfer Tax, Vehicle Registration Tax, etc., so people can plan what they will pay, but condo owners live in an extremely efficient manner yet get killed on property tax because their valuations are high. When looked at, for every 3% property tax raise, core condo owners are actually paying closer to 15% vs. the suburbs. This needs to change. Servicing one building with 300 units costs the city about 70% less than servicing 300 homes in the core. Compared to the suburbs like Scarborough or Etobicoke or North York - fuggehdaboutit - insanely cheap - and this should be reflected in lower mill rates for condos. It will also encourage more density, services, etc..

Similarly, a 2500 square foot house on a 5000 square foot lot at Brimley and Finch costs as much to support as a 2500 square foot house on a 5000 square foot lot in Forest Hill. So perhaps they should be charged the same?

EDIT:

Holy old post Batman. simuls post is from 2010. Still, it deserves a response. While I can partially understand where s/he's coming from, and have even argued something similar in the past, you can't always have it both ways. Most people feel that Forest Hill types in $2 million homes should pay more, but using the city's cost of supporting the home as a measure would mean that they would pay the same as anyone else in a similar sized home in the city.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I don't understand that at all. Is it because they are losing a bit of their front gardens? Or they're worried that walking will attract the wrong element. You know, like guys in hoodies packing Snickers and Iced Tea.

Skittles and Iced Tea....

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Property Taxes

I hate Skittles but I stand corrected.

That's a very good point about the property taxes.

I used to pay about $3800 for my house. My condo, not far from the house, i.e. in the same neighbourhood (almost), costs about $2400 -- for half the square footage and, proportionally, 66% of the selling prices of each.

But ... As Simuls points out, our footprint is much smaller and it much more efficient to service this condo building than all those houses. So, all things being equal, I feel a tiny bit ripped off.

Also, I think there should be allowances for the value of land. A plot in Rosedale is far more valuable than a plot in Rexdale.

Seems to me that changing the property tax system makes sense for attracting people into higher density living.

 

[Eug]

I don't think there is a pressing need to attract people into higher density living. It's already extremely popular, as evidenced by the bazillion condos that already exist downtown, even if most are 1 and 2 bedroom.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Interesting article on condo retail, from Spacing Toronto at this link:

The condo retail we need
By Jake Schabas

Last week, the mainstream media awoke to the fact that it’s not just knee-jerk NIMBY reactions driving Torontonians to fight new condo developments. It’s the banal podiums, those first few stories of big-box banks, pharmacies and chain retail stores that are the pièce de résistance of new condos in the city. (Spacing's Shawn Micallef also wrote about this last week in his Toronto Star column).

While urban designers have been saying this for a while now, little attention has been given to why big boxes, banks and chain retail are the developer’s ground floor tenants of choice. Or for that matter how this could be changed. I’ll start this post by trying to explain why this is happening across the city and then highlight a few ways we could address the problem.

Toronto’s current zoning requires most new residential developments, particularly those on main streets, to be mixed use i.e. to have commercial tenants on the ground floor. The City’s Avenue plans then try to tweak these requirements with setback and height regulations so new buildings will match the existing character of the main streets they will inhabit.

These regulations make their impact far before the condo is even built. To get a development constructed takes loans, and banks (particularly in Canada) won’t provide construction loans until enough units have been sold. In financing, these sales are reflected as a cash flow the bank can measure to decide whether they believe the developer can make enough income on the project to pay off the loan. Locking down commercial tenants in those large podiums therefore becomes a key part of the cash flow equation.

But commercial tenants, unlike condo owners, are essentially renters. They sign on for limited time periods and, crucially, often depend on the success of their business to pay the rent. As a result, rather than find lots of small independent businesses to fill their podiums, developers look for the safest tenants willing to occupy lare floor plates for a long period of time. Goodbye mom-and-pop shop, hello Shoppers. In other words, form follows finance.

The irony of this is that having many smaller tenants rather than a couple large big box chains or banks would probably make a developer (and municipalities) more money. But to banks — and to some extent developers — this is riskier than landing a couple deep-pocketed tenants who will pay lower rent on large spaces but have little chance of closing down unexpectedly (unlike new restaurants, 60% of which fail in their first year), forcing the developer to scramble to fill the space.

This is the sad reality that is suburbanizing many of Toronto’s downtown streets. In essence, form follows finance.

There are a few options for combating this problem:

1. Do nothing – As Jane Jacobs famously said, “old ideas can use new buildings, but new ideas need old buildings.†In other words, we could just wait a while. Look at some of the older condo buildings along the waterfront and you’ll generally see a diversity of smaller chain stores. This may not satisfy the Ossington crowd, but its better than sterile banks and drug stores.
   There are also signs that developers might just realize that it pays to have interesting tenants. Five St. Joseph is the best example of a condo project actively marketing the fact that it’s keeping its small storefronts. Up market projects like the Shangri-La or Four Seasons aggressively seek out ritzy tenants to give their tower the glamour needed to sell $28 million condos. Finally, developers are starting to take notice of the Distillery Districts and DUMBOs that subsidize a menu of galleries, shops and restaurants to create the street life that sells a lifestyle as much as it sells condos.
   
2. Do something – New York City has taken the lead in actively regulating the size and location of commercial stores on streets through zoning. This happened first on Harlem’s 125th Street, where new banks were relegated to the second floor of buildings. More recently, City Council has gone one step further, passing new zoning in the Upper West Side that also limits the width of storefronts. It’s unclear whether this will return either neighbourhood to their formerly messy glory, but it’s a start.
   
3. Compromise – Move away from the mixed-use podium paradigm that forces developers to provide banal retail and instead have them build family-sized townhouses free of use regulations. After all, the buildings found on Toronto’s beloved main streets were originally built for (and often by) families to live in. They were the building blocks from which small businesses sprung.

The City is already trying to get more family-sized units included in new condo developments and allowing families to rent out the first floor of their townhouse to businesses could make these units more affordable. This is already happening in CityPlace and Queen Street West condos, where small businesses are springing up in the townhouses built at the bases of new towers.

There’s no guarantee these ideas will lead to the kind of neighbourhoods many of us want to live in. In the end, it’s high rent that is driving independent businesses from the downtown; case in point, the plethora of family-owned ethnic restaurants found cheek-by-jowl in Toronto’s suburban strip-malls and food courts.

The key is to avoid the griping about big boxes and banks that can be dismissively shrugged off like so many other 'white people problems.' After all, many neighbourhoods need more banks and drugstores. But Toronto’s downtown also has needs: family-sized units, affordable housing and gathering spaces to tie communities together. These needs shouldn’t be trumped by design imperatives for flush streetwalls and matching setback heights.

What’s clear is the status quo isn't working, and while patience is the name of the game in real estate, better retail and therefore more walkable streets couldn't come sooner.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Family-sized condos

I don't think there is a pressing need to attract people into higher density living. It's already extremely popular, as evidenced by the bazillion condos that already exist downtown, even if most are 1 and 2 bedroom.

Those bazillions of tiny boxes are hardly suitable for couples, let alone families. I look at them as the modern version of the boarding house. Temporary housing for working folks who need to be in the city as inexpensively as possible. I don't know the stats, but my guess is that a substantial number of them are rented out and I hardly think that some units are good investments as in "starter homes" you eventually sell to move to whatever neighbourhood is up-and-coming with relatively inexpensive houses.

As for big box stores, that's a very interesting post. Thanks WK Lis. Those work-live spaces -- e.g. corner of Dundas and Logan, Pape and Mortimer in the east end -- could happen. I spent my earliest years living above my parents' business -- with a "playground" built on the roof -- on a very busy commercial street in Montreal.

But we all need to go to Canadian Tire once in a while, even if we live on the 55th floor. Why not scaled down versions of some of these big box types, marketed for the local consumer?

 

[uptownto]

Also, I think there should be allowances for the value of land. A plot in Rosedale is far more valuable than a plot in Rexdale.

Seems to me that changing the property tax system makes sense for attracting people into higher density living.

I'm sure one day we will see a new property class in the Toronto city tax code that differentiates multi-dwelling unit vs house when assessing residential and gives them a preferential rate. Condo residents will eventually outnumber house residents (if they haven't already) and some crafty mayoral candidate will make this the new wedge issue.

I don't think we need to make any special inducements for families wanting to live in higher dense environments. I think this demand will come naturally, especially if Toronto is on the same trajectory as a more mature city like New York. Once families decide they want to live in condo apartments, then we'll see things that happen in places like New York, happen here. Things like buying up 2 or 3 adjacent condo units and remodeling them into one family sized one. If anything is needed, then it should be Ontario laws that supersede condo boards for things like unit expansion.

But back to property taxes. I always wondered about just having a Land Value Tax. i.e. assess only the land value, and not the improvements on the land. This would encourage higher density living, and really limit amateur land speculation like sitting on parking lots, or crappy bungalows in multi-million dollar neighbourhoods, etc. It would also encourage people to improve their properties as they wouldn't be taxed on the improvements.

 

[rbt]

Things like buying up 2 or 3 adjacent condo units and remodeling them into one family sized one. If anything is needed, then it should be Ontario laws that supersede condo boards for things like unit expansion.

This happens a lot in Montreal too. Rentals a extremely cheap and penthouse units (for rent) are non-existent. It's increasingly common to rent an entire floor of units (or one end of it) and make temporary adjustments like putting a door in the hallway and removing individual unit doors.

 

[Eug]

Those bazillions of tiny boxes are hardly suitable for couples, let alone families. I look at them as the modern version of the boarding house. Temporary housing for working folks who need to be in the city as inexpensively as possible. I don't know the stats, but my guess is that a substantial number of them are rented out and I hardly think that some units are good as in "starter homes" you eventually sell to move to whatever neighbourhood is up-and-coming with relatively inexpensive houses.

Translated: You want big units for cheaper than they are now.

The reason the condos are small is because of cost. Sizes are shrinking to accommodate the incomes of those buying. BTW, as I mentioned earlier in the thread I actually considered buying a 3-bedroom condo in my condo complex downtown but decided against it because of the cost. Let me tell you though, those large units didn't move quickly, but when they did, they were purchased by empty nesters, not young families.

And, when it came time to sell many years later, it was the 1 and 2-bedroom units that appreciated the most. The 3-bedroom units in my complex also appreciated significantly, but not to the same extent percentage wise.

BTW, I know several in 2-bedroom units who had kids during that time period. They ended moving out of downtown. Not a single family that I know of bought one of the 3-bedroom units in my complex. They just moved to places like Riverdale, and are very happy there.