The slowness of the approvals process has been pegged as a key villain in the goal to increase the supply of housing in Ontario. But the truth is more complicated.

In recent years, the province has seen a flurry of bills in support of a provincial ten-year target to build 1.5 million homes. In October 2022, there was the More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23) and the More Homes for Everyone Act (Bill 109). Now, 2024 has seen the introduction of the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act (Bill 185).

A key theme in these Acts is the streamlining—and quickening—of approvals. Bill 23 removed the public meeting requirement for plans of subdivision, exempted developments of up to 10 units from site plan control, prevented third-party appeals on minor variance applications, removed the ability of municipal staff to require changes in exterior materials, and limited the role of conservation and heritage authorities.

Next, Bill 109 required site plan approvals to be completed by municipalities in 60 days, and to review projects requesting a by-law amendment within 90 days (or 120 days if the decision was concurrent with an official plan amendment application). To respond to what William Johnston, Toronto’s Interim Deputy City Manager of Infrastructure and Development Services, characterized as the “punitive legislated timeline provisions” of this bill, the City of Toronto hired an additional 150 staff to manage the workload. The new timelines did not allow staff to provide even a single round of comments about matters as basic as a building’s height or the size requirements of a new sanitary pipe, so comments were pushed to a mandatory pre-application consultation phase.

Bill 185, if passed, will remove the requirement for mandatory pre-consultations—reducing the ability of municipal staff to make any meaningful comments on applications, unless a developer voluntarily opts-in to this process. In many cases, this will have the effect of further shortening the timeline with which developers proceed along the well-trod route of appealing an application rejected on the municipal level to the Ontario Land Tribunal, which has the authority to override local decisions.

While this may be helpful in smaller centres where staff are less well equipped to evaluate applications, in larger cities, the move to further reduce the review and oversight process for development applications will almost certainly have an overall negative effect on the quality of buildings. Perhaps this is a worthwhile trade-off for a rapid influx of new homes. But will quicker approvals ultimately get us more housing? 

A 2023 report from Gregg Lintern, Toronto’s Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning, suggests that the answer is: no. It found that 103,638 residential units had been built between 2017 and 2022, and that there were an additional 203,793 residential units—twice that number—that had already been approved, but not yet built. Many of these properties, presumably, are held by speculators who strategically upzone without ever having the intention to build. An additional 409,896 units were still under review at the time of Lintern’s report. If all of those units were realized over time, this would increase the total number of dwellings in Toronto by one half—exceeding the city’s projected 2051 population of 3.66 million by 14%. 

The same year, the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario undertook a similar exercise. It reported that, province-wide, there were already over 1,250,000 housing units approved before Bill 23 even came into the picture. If stakeholders were to collaborate in getting these already-approved units built, the report implied, the province would get to its goal without rushing further approvals or removing environmental controls.

In response, a report commissioned by developer lobby groups Building Industry and Land Development (BILD) and Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA), countered that there were only 331,600 “shovel ready” units, and that an additional 731,000 were in the application process, needing additional approvals, requiring a servicing allocation, or awaiting decision from a municipal council.

Perhaps a balance will come into place with an additional provision proposed in Bill 185—a “use it or lose it” provision that will give municipalities the option to specify the expiry of site plan approvals after three years.

All of this points to problems in housing supply that go beyond what can be solved by cutting red tape alone: a meaningful acceleration in homebuilding would require addressing systemic problems such as inflation and the lack of tradespeople. As Lintern concluded in his 2023 report: “Provincial targets are aspirational and their pursuit will not result in actual completed homes without a complete rescaling of the capacity of the development industry to construct new homes.”

As appeared in the June 2024 issue of Canadian Architect magazine

The post Editorial: Why the Rush? appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Montreal’s Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) strives to “make people think” about architecture as a public concern. One way they do this is by commissioning, screening—and even producing—films. 

The CCA’s cinematic strength shines in Where We Grow Older, the culminating segment of a trio of housing documentaries directed by Daniel Schwartz, whose prior housing hits include The Disappearance of Robin Hood and Torre David. Conceived by CCA Director Giovanna Borasi, this new film trilogy explores housing innovations in cities around the world. Beyond sharing great projects, these films help viewers to see and to empathize with people who need an architecture of care and those working to provide it.

The first film, What it Takes to Make a Home (2019), shares what led to Star Apartments, an iconic supportive housing project for the chronically homeless designed by Michael Maltzan in Los Angeles (where the homeless population exceeds 75,000), and an even more inclusive mixed-use co-housing project in Vienna called VinziRast-mittendrin, by Gaupenraub+/- architects, which brings university students, workshops, and a restaurant into the homeless housing mix. In both cases, quality architecture centers, and protects vulnerable people, defending their right to the city, and to good design.

The second film, When We Live Alone (2020) peeks at people living solo in Tokyo, where, squeezed for money, time and space, individuals balance intimate solitude with urban adventures. As the film reveals, however, a society of individuals is possible only in communities with generous public spaces, parks, libraries, affordable restaurants, and cafés, where social life is risked and shared.

Where We Grow Older (2023) hits a homerun, with seniors’ housing success stories in Barcelona and Baltimore. Now playing internationally, the film screened recently at Winnipeg’s Architecture + Design Film Festival. The film features elders happy to have quality housing and care, seniors keen to access it, and a chorus of thoughtful architects, community advocates, and support staff. A tale of two cities, the film compares successful municipally funded projects like Alí Bei, in Barcelona, a city rich in innovative housing and social infrastructure, with the soon to be built Carehaus, an intergenerational co-housing project in a neglected neighborhood of Baltimore.

Designed by Pau Vidal and Vivas Arquitectos, Alí Bei (completed in 2020) is one of 20 seniors’ apartment buildings in Barcelona funded and managed by the city. The growing network aims to provide housing and care for hundreds—perhaps thousands—of low-income seniors, allowing them longer lives in their own neighborhoods. Generous courtyards, terraces and balconies, overlook lively social amenities, like market squares and sporting fields, bringing a mix of people and activities together.

In Baltimore, Carehaus is an ambitious intergenerational co-housing project, aiming to integrate professional caregivers and their families with elderly tenants they care for together in the building. Co-designed by community-based artist Marisa Morán Jahn, architect Rafi Segal, and affordable housing developer Ernst Valery, the project is a promising pilot. If expanded, and more fully funded, it could profoundly reverse patterns of isolation and neglect that have damaged and divided people around the world.

These three CCA films on housing—and the people and projects they gather—show us how and why change might yet be achieved. 

Based in Toronto, architectural teacher and critic Ted Landrum was co-curator of Winnipeg’s annual Architecture+Design Film Festival for 10 years. Support their festival by visiting adff.ca

As appeared in the June 2024 issue of Canadian Architect magazine

The post Where We Grow Older appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Toronto architect John van Nostrand’s firm, SvN, has long worked with housing at all scales—from individual cottages, to highrises and masterplans. In doing this work, van Nostrand was keenly conscious of a problem exacerbated during the pandemic—a “gap in the housing continuum” between the growing population of unhoused people in shelters and encampments, and the currently available supply in affordable or supportive housing. 

The non-profit he founded to address this problem, Two Steps Home, aims to fill that gap, 50 people at a time. Its prototype cabin was unveiled at Toronto’s Interior Design Show  this winter.  It’s a mass timber, peak-roofed, tiny dwelling, sized to be moved on the back of a flatbed trailer. Developed with the support of prefab manufacturer CABN, the Two Steps Home is intended to be durable, sustainable, and—most of all—pleasant to live in.

The compact housing units are “designed to Passive House standard,” explains lead architect Aaron Budd. In contrast to many poorly constructed temporary dwellings, the units include robust thermal insulation, reduced thermal bridging, quality windows and doors, and heat recovery ventilators. Each cabin has a lockable door and a small canopy over the entrance that allows for interactions at the threshold. 

Inside, the exposed mass timber “gives a sense of warmth, a sense of home,” says Budd. At IDS, many visitors approached Budd saying, “I would love one of these in my backyard”—a positive sign, to him, that the cabins would be welcoming places, rather than second-rate shelters.

Manufacturer CABN helped further refine SvN’s design, with energy performance, durability in use and transportation, and material efficiencies in mind. Through its non-profit arm, CABN Foundation, the manufacturer was able to apply lessons from the R&D from its for-profit lines of prefab buildings. It will build the cabins for cost plus a minimal seven percent.

The efficient, affordable use of mass timber is at the heart of CABN’s work, says founder Jackson Wyatt. “These are a true home rather than a steel box—that’s something wood can bring. Because the wood walls are 4 ½” thick, there’s a sense of security you feel from that, as well as the ability to transport and repair it, that make these a healthy place to live—regardless of where you are in life.”

While the dwellings don’t have their own plumbing, SvN envisages communities of 50 cabins that would share communal kitchen and washroom facilities. The cabin communities would be located on development sites that are in limbo, near to future affordable housing. As that affordable housing was completed, residents would move from the cabins into permanent housing, and the cabins could be moved wholesale to another site—ready to house new residents taking their own first steps towards housing security.

 
As appeared in the April 2024 issue of Canadian Architect magazine

The post Two Steps Home appeared first on Canadian Architect.

PROJECT Îlot Rosemont, Centre de services de l’Office municipal d’habitation de Montréal + Résidence des Ateliers, Montreal, Quebec

ARCHITECT Lapointe Magne et associés

TEXT Odile Hénault

PHOTOS David Boyer

Emerging from Montreal’s Rosemont subway station, these days, one may be in for a bit of a shock. Where there used to be a small pavilion with direct access to the subway system—and a generous turning loop for buses—there is now the strong presence of an L-shaped complex, eight storeys high along Rosemont Boulevard and ten storeys along St. Denis Street. This recent addition to Montreal’s highly eclectic urban fabric epitomizes the city’s progress towards promoting mixed-use, urban densification, and public transit. Translated into reality, this means a subway station-topping complex that offers affordable housing for 200 seniors, as well as holding the headquarters of the Office municipal d’habitation de Montréal (OMHM)—a not-for-profit responsible for the management of some 880 buildings and close to 21,000 social housing units across the metropolis. 

A complex context

The building sits at the border between the Plateau Mont-Royal and Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, central boroughs which span either side of a long, curving CPR freight line. For decades, the 40,000-square-metre site to the north of the rail line was occupied by municipal works yards and workshops, which were gradually demolished over time. In 2006, a new Master Plan was adopted to redevelop the city-owned area, with an emphasis on both market housing and social housing, as well as on public amenities essential to support a new neighbourhood. During the following years, the area saw developments including Bibliothèque Marc-Favreau (Dan Hanganu architects, 2013), Quartier 54, a thoughtfully designed eight-storey condominium complex (Cardinal Hardy Beinaker architects, 2012) and the Coopérative du Coteau vert, a three-storey social housing project built around a central garden (L’Oeuf, 2010).

The last site on this major lot was earmarked for affordable and social housing. In 2013, Lapointe Magne & associés was mandated to design the project, which by then had grown in size to include the OMHM headquarters. One of the architects’ main challenges, apart from the actual building design, was to secure and harmonize the labyrinthine movements of pedestrians, bikes, buses, cars, and emergency vehicles gravitating on and around the site. To top it off, bordering the parcel is an underpass heading south, and an overpass going east. A strong urban gesture was needed. 

Shaping Îlot Rosemont

The architects’ mandate to renovate the existing subway access and integrate a bus terminal and turning loop was to have a major impact on the structure and the overall shape of the complex, as well as on its visual identity. Approaching the site, one is struck by the unexpected presence of giant V-shaped supports, zigzagging along the building’s perimeter. They form part of the intricate structural solution found by the engineers and architects as they looked to accommodate the large spans required by the public transit program, without compromising on the number of affordable units above. 

The 193-unit Résidence des Ateliers occupies the upper five levels of the complex’s east wing and the upper seven levels of its west wing. The exterior volume of the overall complex is softened by the introduction of balconies and loggias, which reveal the presence of its occupants. Most of the units are one-bedroom apartments, which were designed with care despite the strict budgetary constraints attached to subsidized housing: the Résidence des Ateliers is the 11th initiative of a city-sponsored program called Enharmonie, which targets low-income seniors. As it happens, Lapointe Magne was the first architecture firm to be hired when the program was launched, designing the Résidence Jean-Placide-Desrosiers (inaugurated in 2006; see CA, Feb. 2007), and later commissioned with the Résidence Alfredo-Gagliardi (2008), located above the busy Jean-Talon subway station. 

Given Îlot Rosemont’s peculiarly shaped site, the architects were able to avoid conventional, identical apartments and come up with almost 34 different unit types, all universally accessible. The lack of lavish budgets was compensated for by great attention to the treatment of spaces within the units and in commodious corridors with whimsical, oversized wayfinding graphics. Particular emphasis was put on light-filled communal and dining spaces. These were placed at the wings’ junction point in order to take full advantage of the obtuse angles generated by this irregular site. 

These gathering spaces are also found on the office floors, where light abounds thanks to an open plan and high ceilings with exposed mechanical and structural elements, which are particularly impressive at the third level. The communal rooms, such as the south-facing cafeteria on the third floor, offer generous views of the immediate surroundings and of Mount Royal in the distance. The OMHM’s double-height reception area is directly accessible from St. Denis Street, in a spot some neighbours would have preferred to see given over to a more glamorous function. The choice made by the OMHM was to offer its equity-deserving clients a space with dignity, defying the possibility of NIMBY sentiments. 

A strong urban presence

Îlot Rosemont is a robust, unexpected object in the landscape. And it does take some getting used to, despite the looming presence across the road of a far bulkier structure built in 1972 for a then-rapidly expanding textile industry. Lapointe Magne’s response to this condition was to integrate the brutalist building by making it part of a symbolic gateway to an area of the city that is still undergoing major changes. In an effort to soften the transition towards the massive concrete volume, a dark brick—interspersed with subtle aubergine inserts and ochre finishes—was selected for the west wing of Îlot Rosemont. For the east wing, a contrasting white brick was adopted in homage to the much gentler Bibliothèque Marc-Favreau.  At ground level, the soffit and bus loop that run underneath the raised building are clad with ochre-colored perforated aluminum panels.

Key to understanding this latest urban intervention is the eclectic nature of Montreal’s streetscapes. A certain appearance of unity is given by the residential neighbourhoods with their regular, orthogonal grid and their two- and three-storey-high rowhouses, known locally as duplexes and triplexes. Attempts at building anything that breaks away from tradition are often met with scepticism. Nonetheless, the need to densify the city around subway stations—and on any of Montreal’s innumerable vacant lots—creates valuable opportunities for planners and architects to propose new formulas.

What has been built in Rosemont-La-Petite Patrie since 2006 can definitely be called a success. In less than twenty years, a new urban environment has sprung up here, anchored by some 800 housing units, more than half of which are affordable or cooperative housing.  It is an exemplary showcase for the urban densification so often called for as a response to urban sprawl. Municipal leadership should be applauded for leading the way, by demonstrating how its own properties can be developed in ways that embrace complex programs and sites, as well as promoting affordable housing. Furthermore, the Îlot Rosemont and its immediate neighbours constitute a unique illustration of what committed, talented architects can contribute to their city—if and when there is political will.

Odile Hénault is a contributing editor to Canadian Architect.

CLIENT Office municipal d’habitation de Montréal (OMHM) | ARCHITECT TEAM Lapointe Magne & Associés: Frédéric Dubé, Katarina Cernacek,  Pascale-Lise Collin , Alain Khoury,  Olivier Boucher,  Isabelle Messier-Moreau,  Esther Gélinas, Alizée Royer,  Frédérick Boily, Yves Proulx | STRUCTURAL  Tetratech | MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL Norda Stelo | LANDSCAPE VLAN Paysages | INTERIORS Lapointe Magne et associés | CIVIL AECOM | CONTRACTOR Pomerleau | SIGNAGE/WAYFINDING Pastille Rose | AREA 24,560 m2  | BUDGET $91.2 M | COMPLETION November 2022

ENERGY USE INTENSITY (PROJECTED) 151.2 kWh/m2/year | WATER USE INTENSITY (PROJECTED) 0.55 m3/m2/year

 
As appeared in the April 2024 issue of Canadian Architect magazine

The post Urban Crossroads: Îlot Rosemont, Montreal, Quebec appeared first on Canadian Architect.

As c\a\n\a\d\a’s leading voice in architectural journalism, and at a time when support for architectural criticism has waned, Canadian Architect’s review of Not for Sale! by Architects Against Housing Alienation at the Venice Biennale is important. We are grateful for this interest, and we appreciate Adele Weder’s detailed engagement with our work (see CA, August 2023). Her review is helping us hone our arguments and work to improve the quality of our project and its direction. 

However, we question the impression of our Not for Sale! campaign that your readership received and are writing here to share our perspective. Our project is ongoing and won’t end when the exhibition closes in late November. The exhibition is just one step in a long process of creating real change and new forms of advocacy that architects across c\a\n\a\d\a can participate in. In other words, it’s a “hot mess” for a purpose, and in the best way. 

First, we wholeheartedly agree that transforming the housing system is significantly a design problem and requires images as well as words. Second, the radically collaborative nature of the project is essential to its functioning as an inclusive campaign. It might indeed require a “dog’s breakfast” of different approaches to solve the magnitude of brokenness we face. Third, we think meaningful demands need to exceed what is currently possible in our political climate in order to change the conversation about housing. 

On our first point, each of the ten demands that comprise the campaign is richly illustrated with an architectural project, designed by a number of the country’s most celebrated architects, though the review unfortunately did not describe this work. We purposely designed the pavilion–the heart-quarters of a campaign to imagine possibilities for decommodified architecture in c\a\n\a\d\a–to be a “graphic riot”. It includes over a hundred architectural drawings, perspectives, and diagrams, in order to represent the many diverse voices who have come together to make a common campaign. The review states that the “modest” design transformation has two main features: the Land Back garden and the interior mezzanine, somehow missing a third architectural transformation: the exterior hoarding that blocks the pavilion for viewers approaching and presents them not with words, but images of a tent encampment in Vancouver, illustrating the real housing conditions for the most housing-insecure Canadians.

Second, this project is unique, not only because of its subject matter, but because of its collaborative formation. This collaboration is on display in the hoarding mentioned above, whose images were made for a documentary with the tent community, and the selection of images from that documentary was done with the community’s participation. Not for Sale! was initiated by six people who bring different skill sets to the project; although we all teach, some of us are designers, some historians, and half of us are registered architects. Indeed, the project is “overcrowded” (which seems fitting for a project about housing). Though the review lists some contributing architects, it omits Urban Arts Architecture’s Ouri Scott, Grounded Architecture, SOLO Architecture, and the work of David T. Fortin Architect—all Indigenous practitioners whose contributions are crucial for understanding both housing alienation and an architecture of connection–as well as SvN, whose senior partner John van Nostrand is the most experienced affordable housing architect in this campaign. 

We collaborated initially with thirty organizations, which form ten teams, each including an architect, an activist and a housing advocate—though the campaign has grown to over forty organizations and over a hundred contributors. The ten demands, which are the centrepiece of the campaign, emerged in a collaborative and bottom-up process. Hardly “compiled by academics,” the ten multi-disciplinary teams wrote and designed them, and they evolved over regular meetings with all participants. This campaign is a radical experiment in uniting architects, activists and advocates in what we hope is a new form of architectural activism, collaboratively created with direct ‘on-the-ground’ experience from across the country. What is perhaps most important is that the campaign has built a national conversation about architecture that includes people with other expertise who share similar and overlapping goals around housing justice in c\a\n\a\d\a. While the review doubts our ability to “enforce such demands,” its contributors are already doing the work—applying for grants, building coalitions of allied organizations, lobbying politicians and organizations, hosting events, and boosting the profiles of each campaign through diverse print and digital media. The project builds on this momentum and will continue to raise awareness and advocate for change. 

Finally, we want to underline that we strongly believe the project’s proposals, while ambitious, are realistic and realizable. The review is unconvinced by the Land Back team’s demand and also doubts the demand for a gentrification tax. Taxes very much like the one the Gentrification Tax team proposes were implemented in Vermont, New Zealand, Ontario, and Washington in the 1970s; the main distinction of this proposal is that it is earmarked so that the profits from housing sales fund housing affordability. There is nothing unrealizable about this proposition; it simply needs to channel an already existing political will. Nor is the Land Back demand of co-ownership of crown land unrealistic. It is an invitation to imagine a different future, one where First Nations leaders work with Canadian governments to reimagine how housing provision is addressed/redressed. The provocation of the team here is, in fact, designed to unsettle the settler imagination, and, in this, it seems to be working.

Our campaign makes ten demands that link c\a\n\a\d\a’s legacy of colonialism and the theft of Indigenous land to the deep inequality that characterizes c\a\n\a\d\a’s current housing system. We do this because today’s unsustainable ideas about the speculative value of property were formed through the process of land dispossession and because it is Indigenous practices that have so much to teach us about how to dis-alienate our homes. Government policies only change for the better because citizens make strong arguments that exceed the limitations of the current legislative and political system. Each team, the students working in the pavilion, and other members of AAHA, are all taking concrete actions toward their realization. As the review rightly points out, we are more concerned with this ongoing campaign than the exhibition itself, and we appreciate the words of encouragement for its success. We agree that our students will have much to teach us along the way—they will in fact be subject to the conditions for housing for longer than we will. We’re just not sure that they will settle for “realistic” adjustments that preserve the status quo.

-Adrian Blackwell, David Fortin, Matthew Soules, Sara Stevens, Patrick Stewart, Tijana Vujosevic (Organizing Committee, Architects Against Housing Alienation)

I reiterate my appreciation of the great challenge and complexity of addressing the housing crisis, and respect that the Not For Sale! team holds a difference of opinion on how to address that crisis. However, I must point out two inaccuracies in their letter of concern.

 First: I agree that the Indigenous perspective is significant, which is why I deemed it important to include curator Simoogit Saa Bax Patrick Stewart’s specific comments. But just as that doesn’t negate the three non-quoted curators, there was no “omission” of any of the other team member names supplied to us. Each of them—including Ouri Scott and David Fortin—are named in the credits. In fact, this complaint affirms my own critique of the project: the pavilion had so many contributors that it was impossible to highlight them all. Whatever insights they could offer—Indigenous and otherwise—tended to be lost in the crowd.

Second: Nowhere in my review do I suggest that co-ownership of crown land with Indigenous peoples is “unrealistic.” On the contrary, here is what I wrote: “If and when that land and its income-generating resources revert to Indigenous stewardship, the Canadian political economy will transform in a major way. Even if the transformation involves co-ownership, the governments’ power and financial strength will almost certainly diminish. You can support that consequence wholeheartedly as historic justice—a fair and necessary transition—but you cannot then assume that our governments will have the wherewithal to bankroll the manifesto’s funding demands for housing, urban revitalization, and reparation payments.” 

We do agree that architecture is political and that architects should have a far greater role in the political life of our cities and our country. For that to happen, we need to encourage more—not less—healthy and robust debate and disagreement, and we need to interpret and reflect each other’s views with accuracy.

-Adele Weder

See all articles in the November issue 

The post Letter to the Editor: Not for Sale! appeared first on Canadian Architect.

At a recent exhibition, a pastel-toned panorama filled the long front wall of the gallery at the University of Toronto’s John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design. The 23-metre-long rendering showed the city of Toronto’s skyline, set against Lake Ontario. 

But instead of the regular from-the-lake vantage point, which highlights the soaring CN Tower accompanied by a host of skyscrapers, the viewer is placed north of the downtown core, past Highway 401. The forest of downtown towers is a speck in the distance: occupying the bulk of the image is a carpet of small houses.

The perspective serves to highlight the enormous footprint taken up by low-rise housing in the city—the so-called “yellowbelt” of land zoned that way, which makes up half of Toronto’s buildable land. In the image, each of those parcels is marked by a monopoly-house-like yellow block. The city’s current and prospective towers, along corridors and at growth centres such as at Yonge and Eglinton, are coded in pink and cream. 

The graphic manifests the city’s “tall and sprawl” planning policy—which encourages high-density towers downtown and along major arterial roads, set within a sea of individual houses. The accompanying exhibition and ongoing research project, Housing Multitudes, sets this model against the reality of a rapidly growing population: last year, almost 160,000 newcomers arrived in the GTA, and the city’s populace is set to grow by 50 percent in the next 25 years. How can the needs of both current and new Torontonians be better met by architecture and planning policy?

Curators Richard Sommer and Michael Piper, in collaboration with faculty colleagues and students, have offered an array of possible answers that build on existing tendencies in the yellowbelt, where intergenerational households and informal economies are evident. A set of animated videos imagines how a suburban house might change over time to accommodate multi-generational living; a series of graphic-novel-like renderings suggests transforming malls into public transit and micro-economic nodes; a planning map proposes the gradual transformation of existing neighbourhood blocks.

“A lot of contemporary research and practice about retrofitting the suburbs critiques this landscape for not being ‘urban’ enough, with not enough density nor active social space,” says Michael Piper. In contrast, he comments, “Our projects explore emergent forms of urbanity in the suburbs—for example, how immigrant communities have reappropriated this landscape and produced new kinds of social space, or how retired citizens produce community by gathering in shopping mall food courts to play board games.”

A section developed by Piper and his students in partnership with LGA Architectural Partners explores the nuts and bolts of how to convert single-family homes, whether in downtown or suburban neighbourhoods, into multi-unit housing. Funded by the Neptis Foundation and also designed to continue after the exhibition, the display and an accompanying website, ReHousing.ca, offer a catalogue of typical Toronto housing types, along with blueprints for how they can be modified to add housing units. An inter-war semi, for instance, can be converted into separate upper and lower units with interior renovations only, gain a third unit with a top addition, and add a fourth unit with a laneway house. 

To further empower “citizen developers,” as Janna Levitt of LGA Architectural Partners calls them, the researchers are currently working with the major banks to enable the purchase and renovation of homes into multi-unit dwellings. This would open homeownership to prospective buyers who may need a rental unit to make their purchase viable, or who may wish to partner with a friend for a house purchase.

While it’s not the first (or last) exhibition on suburbia, Piper says that Housing Multitudes is different in aiming to meet Toronto where it’s at—rather than proposing to tear it all down and replace it. “We hope the work will encourage policy makers and design practitioners to imagine suburban retrofits that learn from the existing landscape, amplifying its nascent urban qualities,” says Piper. This would result, he adds, “in what we think will yield a truly new kind of urbanism.”

The post Housing Multitudes appeared first on Canadian Architect.

After nearly a decade, the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) is pleased the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) has released its final order regarding amendments to the residential provisions of the Toronto Citywide Zoning Bylaw 569-2013.

Originally passed in 2010, the bylaw sought to harmonize approaches across the amalgamated Toronto regions, but was repealed in May 2011, pending a need for consultation and amendments. The OAA’s Harmonized Zoning Bylaw Task Group, comprising architects whose practices represented new construction and renovation work for diverse clients across Toronto neighbourhoods, pushed for meaningful change to the flaws inherent in the law. A new version was released in 2013, however, after several OAA recommendations remained absent, the Association filed an appeal.

The long-awaited decision came just days after the passage of the contentious Bill 23, More Housing Built Faster Act, and, for its part, can contribute to housing affordability in Toronto. Affordability, housing choice, and character preservation are key issues underpinning the suggested amendments tabled by the Association, which regulates architecture to protect the public interest.

The OAA Task Force was focused on encouraging the amendment of the bylaw to foster the goals of Toronto’s official plan of ensuring housing choices are available for all people in their communities at all stages of their lives, while respecting and reinforcing  the character of neighborhoods. Per a March 2018 decision on the case, the main issues at hand were “whether a development permitted through the Bylaw would conform to policies in the Official Plan” and “whether the provisions of the Bylaw would permit appropriate and acceptable development”. Ultimately, it was found that the Bylaw did not uphold the goals of the Official Plan.

The insight of architects into the practical effects of the Bylaw details has improved the regulation of building in Toronto to the benefit of the whole City. Due to the OAA’s appeal, the following changes have been made to the final Bylaw:

• Walk-out basements, as well as non-habitable basements and attics of some existing homes, no longer count as “gross floor area;”
• Coverings over rear terraces no longer count as lot coverage;
• Modest rear porches or terraces are permitted without penalty;
• The ability to provide parking on small lots was improved, and the requirement for a parking space is waived where one is not possible (e.g. narrow lots);
• The ability to continue to build the wide variety of roof shapes found in established neighborhoods was preserved, including lessening restrictions on gabled roofs and dormers; and
• Reductions of house height made within all former City of Toronto neighbourhoods have been partially reversed.

When the City originally adopted the revised harmonized zoning bylaw in 2013, many architects were alarmed at its impact on what could be built in Toronto, explains Jim Pfeffer, Toronto architect and member of the OAA Task Group.

“Architects noticed immediately the increased complexity of the zoning rules, and the way in which the new rules restricted the design options available to them and their clients, funneling new home design into a cookie-cutter form,” he says. “The new rules also affected the ability to renovate existing houses, making basement space in older homes—which did not meet code requirements for habitability—count as floor area, or by making the roofline of even modest existing homes non-compliant.”

The OAA welcomes the conclusion of this lengthy and arduous process, and expresses sincere thanks to those whose tireless efforts were pivotal in achieving this outcome.

“This decision is timely,” notes OAA President Susan Speigel. “It not only removes complexities from the development approval process in the City, but it also mitigates the creation of new restrictions on housing typologies.”

In addition to being relevant to Toronto, the decision reached in this process is also expected to inform approaches in other municipalities across the province, having a positive impact on housing affordability.

The OLT’s final order on City Zoning Bylaw 569-2013 can be viewed on the OAA Website.

The post OAA-Led Amendments Decade-Long Appeal Reaches Its Conclusion appeared first on Canadian Architect.

On Friday, over a dozen of Ontario’s most prominent architectural firms issued an open letter to Premier Ford and Minister Clark in response to Ontario’s Bill 23, which was passed on Monday, November 28. The letter read as follows:

We are writing to you as leading architects, landscape architects, and urban designers in Ontario.

The More Homes Built Faster Act, introduced on October 25, proposes extensive and significant legislative changes that would, if enacted, radically alter land use planning and city building in Ontario. The stated intention of this proposed legislation is to accelerate the construction of 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years to address our housing crisis.

We firmly believe that this legislation will not achieve its stated intent.

Instead, it will inhibit the construction of affordable housing in our province; dismantle regional planning and urban design considerations; undermine heritage protection, environmental protection, and climate change mitigation; and limit public participation in how we build our communities.

We have summarized our major concerns below:

• Bill 23 will reduce the supply of truly affordable housing by reducing the affordable housing requirement in Inclusionary Zoning from 20% to 5%. The required period to maintain affordability is reduced from 99 to 25 years. This will exacerbate generational poverty and extend inequitable access to resources and infrastructure for the people of Ontario.
• Bill 23 will encourage urban sprawl and undermine local democracy by effectively dissolving 50 years of regional planning in the Golden Horseshoe. This will certainly lead to a substantial conversion of farmlands, loss of green lands, and suburban sprawl.
• Public participation will be limited by removing the requirement for a public meeting for plan of subdivision. The Minister will have new powers to amend Municipal Official Plans at any time, for any reason, without public consultation.
• Bill 23 undermines environmental protection by limiting the role of Conservation Agencies to solely that of flooding and erosion hazards. Removed from their oversight will be watershed planning and management, coordinated flood protection, conservation of green lands and biodiversity, which are all core to climate change mitigation.
• Bill 23 threatens the Greenbelt. There are 86,500 acres within the GTA currently zoned and ready for development. This is more than enough land available now that can be used to meet government targets. Housing construction needs to start without delay on these lands that are close to transit and urban services, where people already live, work and play.Yet the government wants to remove 7400 acres of protected green space and farmland in the Greenbelt. Our Greenbelt lands protect the headwaters of the rivers flowing into Lake Ontario, preserve valuable farmland, connect forests and wetland ecosystems that form a continuous arc from the top of the GTA to the Niagara region, and limit suburban sprawl. The Greenbelt belongs to current and future generations of the people of Ontario.
• Bill 23 removes design from the municipal approvals process. Exterior design, landscape and streetscape design should be reviewed during Site Plan Control.  Design review at the municipal level is considered best practice nationally and internationally.We must emphasize that design is not a superficial aesthetic overlay. It is fundamental problem-solving, directly related to the quality of the built environment, and to climate change mitigation. The design review process is critical in delivering safe, healthy, affordable, socially and environmentally sustainable communities to the people of Ontario.

We agree that the current system of municipal approvals needs to be streamlined to deliver urgently needed affordable housing. Bill 23 is not the way to do it. It needs to go back to the drawing board.

To effectively address our affordable housing crisis, we strongly urge the Government of Ontario to rethink Bill 23 and invite the Government to a robust and immediate consultation with leaders in our industry. In collaboration with municipal and provincial governments, we can produce the best possible outcomes for the people of Ontario.

Thank you,

Adamson Associates Architects
Diamond Schmitt Architects
DTAH
ERA Architects
FORREC
Greenberg Consultants
Janet Rosenberg & Studio
KPMB Architects
LGA Architectural Partners
MJMA Architecture & Design
Moriyama & Teshima Architects
Perkins&Will
PMA Landscape Architects Ltd.
PUBLIC WORK
Superkül
The Planning Partnership

The post Architects respond to Ontario’s Bill 23 appeared first on Canadian Architect.

The winners of the 2022 AIA Gold Medal, the organization’s top award, are Angela Brooks, FAIA and Lawrence Scarpa, FAIA, co-founders of the Hawthorne, California–based firm Brooks + Scarpa. Those familiar with their work will not be surprised to learn that this well-deserved honour has been over 30 years in the making—with much more in store.

AIA Canada Society’s Pauline Thimm caught up with Angela Brooks and Lawrence Scarpa this July to find out more about what they stand for, how they have evolved, and where they are going.

Pauline Thimm: On behalf of AIA Canada, I am thrilled to congratulate you on your Gold medal win.  At this moment of intense interest, how would you like people to know you?

Lawrence Scarpa: We want to be known as ‘artists who are citizen-architects’.  We really believe that good design is for everyone.  Art and craft are important, and that has always been part of the artistic mission, but purpose is equally important. We work with purpose.

Angela Brooks: Not everyone knows that we did not start out working together. We first met in architectural school in Florida, and moved to California after school. Larry started a small practice with another partner. I started out working for a non-profit development company, to get a more pragmatic understanding of how communities are developed. I was never really interested in only designing a singular building—I’ve always been interested in exploring the bigger ideas. I was a frustrated urban planner—I just didn’t know it then!

In those early years, we worked together on ‘fun’ things—like competitions—on the weekends.  We eventually started working together, first with another partner until 2010, and then with just the two of us as partners for the last 12 years.

LS: I also worked with Paul Rudolph early on. I used to dig out archived drawings when we worked with historic structures. They were incredible to see—sometimes just four sheets, with simple notes like “contractor to build best quality possible.” We can’t even do general notes like this anymore, let alone an entire drawing set. It is really a different world, and it requires a team effort. It takes a lot of expertise; it takes a combination of strengths in many, many areas.  As a firm, we think of ourselves as a small soccer team that comes together around projects—everybody does everything at Brooks + Scarpa.

Angie and I complement each other with real and equal strengths and interests. Now we work alongside each other every day. Thinking how to work through a project, Angie starts off with the big-picture context, I take it through the design stages, and Angie closes it—she is so detail-oriented.

AB: I believe that in another life, Larry would have been a sculptor.  He is a true artist—and he is always designing.

In our current era, there is an emerging recognition of social purpose in architectural awards—with this AIA Gold Medal, as well as with recent Pritzker Prize winners. How do you see this evolution, and how do we keep moving forward from here as a profession?

AB: There was also this year’s AIA Firm Award for MASS Design, as part of this increased recognition of social equity and climate justice.

LS: We are just doing what we think is right.  We are lucky that people think that what we have done—and continue to do—has meaning. The aspect of doing work that matters for other people is equally as important as the artistic endeavour. They don’t need to be mutually exclusive. We consider ourselves artists—plying our trade to the highest standards—and we also do it with purpose. 

AB: We work with non-profit developers [such as Livable Places] who tell us that good design makes people heal. It doesn’t necessarily cost more to design well, in fact, it often costs less because you are designing in a way that is reflective of a symbiotic relationship to how people really live.

AB: Our profession has so much to give back to our communities, but often by the time architects get involved, all the big decisions have been made. We have always felt that we could make a bigger impact designing for under-resourced people and communities. And now we know that’s true.

LS: It’s not just for—or about—us, it’s for the greater good. We’re lucky that the stars align now, and that others think this approach is important too. It’s a great trend.

You’ve noted that you don’t want Brooks + Scarpa to be viewed as a brand, and you eschew labels. Why is this important?  How does this impact the work you are able to do?

LS: Everyone wants to pigeonhole designers today—as school designers, affordable housing designers, etc. We’ve always been interested in doing a lot of different things—there is a lot to learn and contribute. Our goal is: “Don’t plagiarize yourself!” This can happen when you get branded and end up doing the same thing repeatedly. It can sometimes lead to having less and less impact.

AB: Sometimes, when working on a project type you’ve never worked on before—you can bring a fresh perspective.

LS:  It’s not rocket science to do different typologies, but we aim to do it well. We tend to pick the things that are not seen as glamourous and where the existing work is often really bad.  In affordable housing, for example, we initially thought it wouldn’t take much to be a hero; we found out it wasn’t easy. We like those kinds of challenges—when it is not just about the design potential, but the chance to provide good design to those who don’t ordinarily get it.

AB: I’ve asked Larry, “Can’t we just do the same project type twice? Do we have to do something completely different every time?” I realize now how our approach has made Brooks + Scarpa stronger, though. Because we have such a diverse range of project types, and as a team we represent a lot of different interests, our diversity has helped us weather adversity. We survived the 2006 recession because we had so many different things happening—it’s what kept us going.

The rigour and discipline brought to your work is really apparent, as well as a deep sense of curiosity.  The inherent beauty of the resulting design response is so often complex and layered. What feeds your curiosity?

LS: I’m always interested in finding a better way.  And I teach. I tell my students, “I am here to learn as much as to teach.” I’m inspired by how students take the most mundane things and turn them into a design problem. It’s always interesting and usually not something I would have necessarily thought about. I am always learning something.

It’s also important to always be aware of what is right in front of you—to try to tell the story of what is already there. There is so much to learn right in front of your face!

AB: And we bring our strength as big-idea thinkers. It’s so hard to take an idea from concept through to construction. Everyone who works with us is a good designer who sees and knows what good design is—they all understand. This is how we are able to consistently deliver on our big ideas, even if there has been an evolution of the details.

Can you build on that notion of delivering the big idea and talk a little bit about your design process, including how you give voice to the user? Do you engage in post-occupancy evaluation as part of your process?

AB: Brooks + Scarpa is really good at carrying the key design thread through a project. We would never give the construction phase to someone else—we are involved all the way through. Even after construction is complete, we’ll go back to the client and see how things worked out. We really like surveys—and not just those that are sustainability-focused for the energy side of the analysis, but also surveys for the users.  We ask: How is it working? What do you like? What don’t you like?

We translate this thinking and this feedback beyond the building to its context—constantly thinking about the larger view, the bigger ideas around the projects and in the neighbourhoods where we are putting people. When we create multi-family housing, dense housing, and affordable housing projects, we really want it to be near transit, or in commercial areas or zones.  We are constantly telling the story of how neighbourhoods are for everyone.

Our profession could do a better job of telling the story about how communities can look in the future and how they can be better. Then those deciding where transit goes, how wide streets will be, and how dense projects can be around transit will actually see that this is where we could go.

Our commitment to the follow-up has created a lot of repeat clients for us. The message is that beyond good design, we are shepherding the process all the way through, and we are going to make this work for you in the best way possible, so you will end up with a great, well-designed project.  We really care about that.  And we know this means a lot to our clients as well.

You have spoken about how you’ll often come to a project and rework the design problem, as a way to address the big picture. How do you tackle that, so that the design problem is understood to be more holistic and community-based? How do you bring clients along on that journey?

AB: It really depends. Effecting change is sometimes hard to do on a single project, so we’ve created projects for ourselves. We get involved in really knowing the policy context, the zoning code. We take our lumps, and always ask how we can do better next time. It usually comes down to the ability to change the code in some way, or finding additional money. For our Colorado Court housing project, Larry found half a million dollars of unused grant money with the utility companies that could pay for the project’s solar panels.

LS: Brooks + Scarpa wrote the Small Lots Ordinance for the City of Los Angeles [passed in 2005 to regulate the construction of single-family infill housing and restore small lot development] and we have affected state-level policy change on the energy code. It took threatening to sue the state, and enlisting state representatives to agree it was a good idea. We believe the effort is worth it—getting a policy change in place changes it for everyone. We also realize that, for better or worse, policy is not permanent—in fact, it is less permanent than the buildings themselves.

AB: We’ve found that when clients see that you are all-in, that you will do what you need to do to get it done, people tend to get on-board and help you. They see you are working towards a vision that it is bigger than just a project. A recent example, in our era of mass shootings and hardened schools, is the need to deliver projects that are fully-secure—with bullet-proof glass, gates, etc. It’s about showing the client how there can be multiple solutions—that through design, you can make a project feel really open and look really open, yet be completely secure.

LS: It’s not always easy, sometimes you have to wear them out. You need a bag of tricks. And sometimes you still lose.

AB: We are persistent. We show our clients that we will figure out a way to make it work.

Thinking about the life of a project, and how inhabitants and the building will function in the future, how do you approach design solutions tuned for the next 100 years?

AB:   The way we approach and talk about projects really depends on who the owner is, and their stake.  Long-term owners are often easier to talk with—they want a building that will last into the future.

LS: We focus on things my grandmother would say are just good Jewish common sense: natural light, cross-ventilation. We know these elements are the foundation of good design. We believe that if you do these common sense things that make a place good to live in, the building will have longevity. If it’s just an exercise in form-making, it’s not as likely to have a long life.

I like to quote James Wines [architect and founder of SITE Environmental Design] who in essence says that a building that is an energy hog that everyone loves is ultimately more sustainable than a net-zero building that no one likes or wants to live in. In other words, if anything is to have longevity or sustainability, it has to be loved. It comes down to fact that good design matters. If you can inspire people with what you do, they will love it and care for it. If you don’t treat it that way, it will not last.

Is there a design problem out there you are dying to get your hands on?

LS: Climate change—sea level rise and coastal areas, specifically. Our Founding Peoples have always lived near water. We need water to survive. We are at a time now where all major places to live that are near water are on track to a catastrophic future. Brooks + Scarpa has spent the last five years writing an elaborate manual for coastal adaptation for the east coast of Florida, where sea level rise issues have been occurring for over a decade.

AB: The City of Fort Lauderdale hired us because they wanted creative minds who would think outside of the box—they wanted experts to apply design thinking to the complex problem. They enlisted designers to lead multidisciplinary teams of coastal biologists, engineers, and others to really think about what the future will look like. 

This is the type of complex problem that architects can lead. We have the design process and vision to bring everyone else along. We have the capacity and skill to be not just problem solvers—but to be problem-setters. We are the ones who can identify the true nature and scope of the problem into the future, and then start to think about how we can go about solving it now.

It would be great if more of us could get involved in the design of infrastructure. As architects, we are ideally suited and should be involved in this bigger picture context, and in visionary future-thinking. This is where the profession can start to evolve and grow.

Architect Pauline Thimm is an Associate at DIALOG, and AIA Canada Society’s Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

The post Interview: Angela Brooks and Lawrence Scarpa appeared first on Canadian Architect.

TORONTO — Waterfront Toronto has named two companies that will develop a swath of lakeside land a Google affiliate once hoped to turn into a high-tech neighbourhood.

The organization overseeing the city’s waterfront announced Tuesday that it will begin negotiations for the development named Quayside with Dream Unlimited Corp. and Great Gulf Group.

The companies intend to bring 800 affordable housing units and a nearly one-hectare forested green space with an urban farm sitting atop a residential mass timber building to the five-hectare site in downtown Toronto.

They will also build an arts venue on the land and kit out the property with low-carbon innovations meant to make Quayside the first all-electric, zero-carbon community at this scale.

“We set out to make Quayside the kind of community that meaningfully improves the lives of its residents, neighbours and visitors,” said George Zegarac, Waterfront Toronto’s president and chief executive, in a news release.

“The proposal from Dream and Great Gulf will make a real difference in the lives of those who live near the waterfront or come to visit, by creating affordable rental housing, extensive public spaces, and new jobs and business opportunities.”

Waterfront Toronto said that Dream Unlimited and Great Gulf beat out four other teams vying for the opportunity to transform the land.

The organization expects negotiations with the new partners to be complete by fall 2022. Then, more information will be shared with the public as development plans are drafted and municipal and development approvals are sought.

Waterfront Toronto’s announcement comes after Google affiliate Sidewalk Labs walked away from developing the land in May 2020 because of “unprecedented economic uncertainty.”

Sidewalks Labs had won the right to develop the land in 2017, but many complained about a U.S. company getting its hands on prime Canadian land that they felt should have been developed by homegrown firms.

They also worried about what would happen with data collected from a myriad of sensors and devices Sidewalk Labs planned for the neighbourhood.

At one point, even Waterfront Toronto had concerns with Sidewalk Labs after it unveiled a 1,500-page plan that envisioned a project that spanned 77 hectares — 16 times the original size.

Toronto Mayor John Tory trumpeted the new partners announced Tuesday as a great “Made-in-Toronto/Made-in-Ontario partnership.”

“This is an important step forward in the future of our waterfront and a crucial step in Toronto’s economic recovery,” he said, in a statement.

“I am so determined that Toronto’s economy will come back stronger than ever in the wake of COVID-19 and this project will be an important part of that recovery.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 15, 2022.

The post Waterfront Toronto names new partners for land Sidewalk Labs intended to build on appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Two prominent non-profit organizations have joined forces to convert a vacant downtown office tower into homes for Calgarians in need. Inn from the Cold and HomeSpace Society are partnering on a first-of-its kind project that addresses the desperate need for affordable housing in Calgary.

Construction crews will soon begin work at Sierra Place, located on the C-Train line at the corner of 7th Avenue and 6th Street S.W. Once renovations are complete, the 10-storey building will feature six floors and 82 units of affordable housing for vulnerable populations including low-income women, women with children, Indigenous people, and newcomers to Calgary. The remaining four floors will house shelter, transitional and support services. Gibbs Gage Architects designed the conversion for the project.

“Sierra Place marks the first time a vacant office tower in Calgary has been converted into affordable housing,” says Bernadette Majdell, CEO, HomeSpace. “Nearly one out of every three office towers in our city’s core are sitting empty, at the same time that Calgary is in desperate need of 15,000 affordable homes. This project makes sense and in just over a year, nearly 200 Calgarians will have a place to call home, in a prime location with easy access to transit and essential amenities.”

“As our city emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s more important than ever that non-profits come together and use creativity to solve problems,” says Heather Morley, Executive Director, Inn from the Cold. “Inn from the Cold and HomeSpace are working together on this first-of-its-kind project that will not only build community in an innovative way but also fully support families on their journey to independence.”

The 95,000-square-foot Sierra Place office building, the former Dome Petroleum headquarters, has sat vacant for several years. The conversion project will create 160 jobs for the private sector and vibrancy and economic stimulation in Calgary’s struggling downtown core. When the building is re-opened in the fall of 2022, it will feature a variety of one, two, and three-bedroom units for approximately 180 Calgarians.

The $28.5 million overhaul is being supported by different levels of government, including $5.5 million from the City of Calgary. More information will be unveiled over the summer about fundraising plans to complete the project.

Inn from the Cold (IFTC) is dedicated exclusively to families that are or may become homeless in the Calgary region. IFTC three main programs include homeless prevention and diversion, emergency shelter, and supportive housing.

HomeSpace is a charitable developer, rental housing owner and property manager. HomeSpace provides safe, appropriate and affordable housing for the most vulnerable Calgarians and owns a portfolio of more than 700 units in 24 communities across the city.

The post Calgary’s first office-to-housing conversion to begin construction appeared first on Canadian Architect.

PROJECT Habitations Saint-Michel Nord, Montreal, Quebec

ARCHITECT Saia Barbarese Topouzanov Architectes

PHOTOS James Brittain

One’s first impression of Habitations Saint-Michel Nord is one of surprise. Surprise at a symphony of super-sized cylinders—in reality, glorified fire exits—projecting from the front façades. The festive mood, as exemplified in the transformation of this major 50-year-old housing project, is indicative of a radical change of attitude towards social housing.The original buildings have been stripped of their dull-brown masonry and concrete façades, and are now clad in vibrantly coloured brick, with staircases to match. This unabashed celebration of life sends a clear message: social housing is nothing to be ashamed of. 

The firm responsible for this achievement, Saia Barbarese Topouzanov Architects (SBTA), is well known for its substantial contributions to Montreal over the past decades. It is particularly associated with the city’s rainbow-hued Convention Centre expansion, the subject of considerable commotion when it opened in 2002. The firm’s lesser-known work—including numerous social housing projects—shows their unabated (and increasingly sophisticated) exploration of colour. It also shows their ability to get the most out of meagre budgets.

Habitations Saint-Michel Nord, located northeast of downtown Montreal, was built shortly after the city’s social housing agency, the Office municipal d’habitation de Montréal (OMHM) came into existence. From 1969 to 1979, with architect Guy Legault at its helm, the OMHM built more than 8,000 housing units for underprivileged families. [1] At the time, the euphoria surrounding Expo 67 was dwindling, and municipal authorities became more and more aware of the squalid living conditions prevailing in Montreal’s poorer neighbourhoods.

As a reminder, these were the years when activist Jane Jacobs and left-wing city planner Hans Blumenfeld [2] were actively engaged in public debates that would change Toronto (to quote the title of a book published by another major figure of that period, community organizer and former mayor John Sewell). [3] Poised to learn from Toronto’s experience in social housing, the fledging OMHM hired Hans Blumenfeld as a consultant.

It was in this climate of effervescence—but also of trial and error—that architects Bobrow Fieldman designed Habitations Saint-Michel Nord. Some of the mistakes made in Toronto—such as creating inward-looking courtyards, which Blumenfeld had warned against—were reproduced in the Habitations. However, the 27-building complex had many interesting features. It provided tenants with a large variety of layouts, including maisonette-like two-storey apartments, corner units, and even some through-units—a type still considered a luxury by developers today.

According to SBTA partner Dino Barbarese, “Saint-Michel’s units were well-designed from the start and required only minimal improvements.” The 1972 project also included an underground garage, which extended below the buildings and made it possible to create landscaped grounds, rather than paving over the site for parking.

By 2015, however, the project was approaching the end of its useful life. Some of its 180 units were in such poor repair that they could no longer be occupied. The inner courtyards, which may have looked charming on architectural renderings, had gradually become enclaves for illicit activities, and a no-go zone for many residents. The OMHM was forced to take action. Several options were considered, including total demolition. Thankfully, the chosen solution—to rehabilitate rather than rebuild—would give the complex a new lease on life.

Key to the site’s rehabilitation was the introduction of a central shared street, designed along the principles of the Dutch woonerf. The long city block was essentially split down the middle, creating connections between the residents and the surrounding community and increasing the safety of the area. Six of the original 27 buildings were demolished to make room for this new corridor, which allows for vehicular traffic, but is primarily a community-oriented space. To comply with a mandatory requirement, SBTA had to make up for the units lost in the demolition process, which they did through adding an extra floor to eight existing two-storey buildings.

The most spectacular change, however, comes from the treatment of the façades. Inspired by the work of French-Venezuelan artist Carlos Cruz-Diez, SBTA partner Vladimir Topouzanov chose four earth-toned brick colours, ranging from buff to burgundy; in some sections, the colours are interlaid, producing the illusion of seven distinct hues in all. The metal balconies and spiral stairs were painted accordingly. In a further effort to create a vibrant, dynamic environment, the progression of colours, from light to dark, is inverted on either side of the central street. Inside the buildings, the floorplans were not much altered, but the individual units were completely renovated and given more generous openings.

Previous services—including a youth centre, a multipurpose hall, a community restaurant and a daycare—were relocated to more closely connect with Robert Boulevard and René-Goupil Park, north of the site. These amenities are now open to the entire neighbourhood, encouraging a greater co-mingling between residents of the Habitations and others who live in the area.

The OMHM, which masterminded the logistics for the entire operation, was exemplary in many regards. In addition to coordinating with several municipal services, the agency ensured a smooth transition for the residents. It took care of temporary relocation arrangements: finding appropriate apartments and monitoring school transfers, among other needs. The staff stood by during the entire design, construction and move-in process, keeping the tenants informed and intervening whenever necessary. In the end, 50 percent of the displaced families moved back to the renovated Habitations Saint-Michel Nord last summer. Dino Barbarese speaks highly of his client, saying, “We have rarely done a project of this size with so few hurdles. Everyone seemed to believe in it.”

In Montreal and beyond, numerous social housing projects from the 1970s are in dire need of renovation. The transformation of the Habitations demonstrates how in-depth rehabilitation can be—ecologically and economically—a more sustainable alternative to outright demolition. In the hands of SBTA, the challenge also presented an opportunity for novel aesthetic expression. Habitations Saint-Michel Nord is instructive not only for public housing providers, but also for private developers with aging assets—and considerably higher budgets at their disposal.

Kudos go to the architects who, over recent years and often for modest fees, have gradually changed the image of social housing in Montreal, while bringing dignity and hope to families. For far too long, the words “social housing” have implied drabness and sadness. No longer. Goodbye, tristesse!

1 Guy R. Legault, La ville qu’on a bâtie: Trente ans au service de l’urbanisme et de l’habitation à Montréal, 1959-1986. Éditions Liber, 2002.

2 Frédéric Mercure-Jolette, “Hans Blumenfeld: A Moderate Defence of Expertise in the Controversial 1960s.” Planning Perspectives, 2019, Vol. 34, No. 4.

3 John Sewell, How We Changed Toronto: The Inside Story of Twelve Creative, Tumultuous Years in Civic Life, 1969-1980. Lorimer, 2015.

Architectural writer Odile Hénault is a regular contributor to Canadian Architect. As a young co-op student, she worked for Montreal firm Bobrow Fieldman Architects, a few years after they had completed the construction of Habitations Saint-Michel Nord. She first became interested in social housing when she was the editor of Section a (1983-1986) and has written a number of articles on the topic since.

CLIENT Office municipal d’habitation de Montréal (OMHM) | ARCHITECT TEAM Dino Barbarese (RAIC), Vladimir Topouzanov (RAIC), Geneviève Deguire, Christopher Dubé, Hugo Duguay, Joël Hébert, Maxime Hurtubise, Yvan Marion, Louis-Guillaume Paquet, Karl Robert, Flavia Socol, Yvon Théorêt, Sophie Trépanier-Laplante | STRUCTURAL/CIVIL
Cima + | MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL AEdifica | LANDSCAPE Vlan Paysages | INTERIORS Saia Barbarese Topouzanov Architectes | ENVIRONMENTAL Wood | SECURITY Bouthillette Parizeau | CONTRACTOR Construction Cybco | AREA 22,800m2 | BUDGET $47.5 M | COMPLETION September 2020

The post Goodbye tristesse! Habitations Saint-Michel Nord, Montreal, Quebec appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Located in Vancouver’s Killarney neighborhood, Johnston Davidson Architecture (JDA)’s Vancouver Fire Hall No. 5 is the city’s first fire hall collocated with housing, and sets a precedent for future public building projects.

After serving the Champlain Heights and East Fraser Lands communities since 1952, the replacement of the hall provides the community with colocated housing. The combination of programs is the first of its kind, and delivers for the needs of both fire hall staff and residents. 

The new fire hall’s design aims for LEED Gold. It combines concepts of sustainable architecture with the specific programmatic needs of the Vancouver Fire & Rescue Services (VFRS). It also brings increased density to the area, and creates effective use of City land through the addition of four stories of two- and three-bedroom homes for women-led families.

The 21,000-square-foot fire hall includes three apparatus bays and supporting spaces, including personal protective equipment (PPE) storage, a hose tower, offices, a lounge/day room, kitchen, dormitory, washroom facilities, fitness room, and a community room which doubles as a VFRS training room. This meeting space serves as an interface between VFRS and the community, allowing for bookings by community groups, and use for activities such as CPR and first aid courses, blood pressure clinics, and training for volunteer emergency groups.

The 36,000 square feet of housing within the project was realized in partnership with the YWCA. It includes 31 suites, along with amenity rooms. Communal rooftop outdoor spaces include urban agriculture opportunities, picnic tables and a play area. The housing has a separate, secure entrance from the fire hall.

Architecturally combining two extremely different user groups on a small site—while providing each of them with their own identity—was one of the largest challenges that faced the design team. Issues around security, privacy, shared facilities, and combined services were some of the complications which were addressed during the design. Additionally, protective services facilities in Vancouver need to be designed to post-disaster standards. As a result, the entire building must be able to withstand seismic forces 1.5 times those required for a regular structure.

Throughout the building, accessibility, natural lighting, exterior views and operable windows improve livability for users and reduce energy demand. The housing component of the building is constructed in light wood frame, which adheres to the BC Wood First Act. The wood is harvested locally from sustainably managed forests.

Combining the two programs on a site already owned by the City offered exceptional value, and kept the cost per square foot down in comparison to similar facilities in Vancouver. This successful combining of needs and increased value frees up and allows for improved allocation of citywide resources.

The post Fire Hall No. 5, Vancouver, British Columbia appeared first on Canadian Architect.

The Rick Hansen Foundation (RHF) is supporting the development of a new national standard for affordable, adaptable and accessible homes across Canada.  The Foundation intends to use the proposed national standard, being developed by CSA Group, to inform the basis of a new Rick Hansen Foundation Accessibility Certification (RHFAC) module enabling RHFAC Professionals to rate the accessibility of residential homes.

Based upon the National Standard of Canada, CSA B651-18, Accessible design for the built environment, the RHFAC will be the only national program that rates, certifies and celebrates the meaningful accessibility of buildings from the perspective of persons with mobility, vision and hearing disabilities.

The federal government, through the National Housing Strategy (NHS) delivered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), is providing $190,000 in funding to CSA Group to support research and the development of their new standard.

“Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. Research is key to finding new, innovative approaches to help address Canada’s housing challenges and make it easier for Canadians to find a home that meets their needs and that they can afford,” said The Honourable Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and Minister Responsible for CMHC. “Our Government is proud to support this project dedicated to affordable, adaptable and accessible housing.”

Research informing the new proposed standard will use established methodologies to contribute to the development of new knowledge and the synthesis of existing knowledge. RHF will provide expertise in housing accessibility as a member of the advisory panel that will help guide the development of the new standard.

The proposed new accessible homes standard will help support the development of affordable, adaptable and accessible homes across Canada by providing evidence-informed guidance, and the application of new and existing knowledge related to best practices for the design, construction, and modification of homes.

Public polling released by the Angus Reid Institute in January 2019 shows that one in three Canadians have issues getting around their own home, and a majority are anticipating challenges moving around at home in the future.

“Having the opportunity to age at home is increasingly important to Canadians, and the need for accessible housing in Canada is a huge issue,” says Brad McCannell, VP Access and Inclusion at the Rick Hansen Foundation. “We’re thrilled that CSA Group will be developing this new residential standard, and look forward to incorporating it into RHFAC to help industry address this critical gap.”

CSA Group is a standards organization which develops testing, inspection and certification. CSA Group currently works with the Foundation to host the online RHFAC Registry of publicly listed accessibility certified sites in Canada and administers the RHFAC Professional exam.

“Consensus-based standards could help give Canadians greater options for accessible housing. Our accredited standards development process aims to create resources combining technical expertise and knowledge with meaningful and achievable targets that are in the public interest,” says Nancy Bestic, Director of Health and Safety Standards, CSA Group.

The proposed new accessible homes standard is scheduled to be published in May 2022.

The post CSA, Rick Hansen Foundation support national standard for accessible homes appeared first on Canadian Architect.

TEXT Ya’el Santopinto and Graeme Stewart, ERA Architects / The Tower Renewal Partnership

As Canada sets out on the path toward COVID-19 recovery, retrofits of affordable tower apartments should be at the top of the stimulus priority list. Maintaining and enhancing towers improves health outcomes, housing security and climate resilience—all while accelerating retrofit market growth and providing green jobs.

Canada’s affordable apartment towers are the backbone of its purpose-built rental housing system, representing more than half of all high-rise units in the nation. Legacies of the post-war apartment housing boom of the 1960s and 70s, many of these buildings are now a half-century old and in need of critical repair. Months of sheltering in place due to COVID-19 have underscored the inequities of the housing system, and the acute challenges in upgrading this stock are more visible than ever.

ERA Architects is one of the founders of a research collaborative—the Tower Renewal Partnership—that seeks to transform aging apartment housing into healthy homes for the 21st century. When it was conceived over a decade ago, the initiative was motivated by the social impact of community investments and the environmental impact of GHG emissions reduction. That focus gradually shifted toward a healthy-housing-first approach, as we began to see more homes with inadequate fresh air supply, mould growth and severe overheating risk. Now, in the era of COVID-19, public interest has moved squarely to a health-first focus. 

The conditions for health-first housing retrofit are quickly coming into place: we are now watching a first set of deep retrofit projects emerge across the country, thanks to federal leadership through the landmark National Housing Strategy and complementary provincial and territorial programs which support emissions reduction targets. Last year, Toronto Community Housing secured $1.3 billion in these funds for deep energy retrofits. The Tower Renewal Partnership supports broader renewal through research and policy, from green finance models to technical best-practice guidelines.

ERA Architects is heading up several retrofits of postwar apartment towers. Our Passive House-standard retrofit of a 1967 affordable seniors’ building is resulting in resilient, net-zero-ready housing. When completed next year, the Ken Soble Tower will include modernized ventilation with direct in-unit fresh air supply, cooling designed to serve the building in the hotter climate predicted for 2050, an ultra-high performance envelope with triple-glazed windows and 10 inches of mineral wool insulation, interior surface temperatures warm enough to protect against condensation, heat recovery for air and domestic hot water, and floorplans reconceived for aging-in-place and community cohesion. 

When we collaborated with CityHousing Hamilton to develop a funding pitch for the Ken Soble Tower, the project’s primary innovation was a 94 percent carbon emissions reduction target. Now, seen through the lens of a global pandemic, the building is innovative for its fresh air delivery, thermal comfort, and resilient back-up systems. Energy efficiency has become a secondary—though significant—co-benefit of health-centred performance.

While the Ken Soble Tower is currently empty, much of the housing stock that needs upgrading is fully occupied. We have been working with local and international partners—including resident groups, construction associations, housing providers, and architects—to develop a best-practice guide to retrofits with residents in place. Scaling up such resident-first approaches will involve creativity from architects and contractors, including supply chain improvements and methodological innovations. 

The pandemic has added yet more reasons why housing renewal at scale, nation-wide, is urgently needed. It’s time to get started.

• Michel Broz (Jodoin Lamarre Pratte) on hospital design
• Darryl Condon and Melissa Higgs (HCMA) on community centres
• Robert Davies (Montgomery Sisam) on long-term care homes
• Jason-Emery Groen (HDR) on team structure
• Susan Gushe and Kathy Wardle (Perkins and Will) on the climate crisis
• Bruce Kuwabara, Mitchell Hal, Kael Opie and Geoff Turnbull (KPMB Architects) on academic facilities
• Matthew Lella (Diamond Schmitt) on theatre design
• Caroline Robbie (Quadrangle) on office design
• Graeme Stewart and Ya’el Santopinto (ERA) on housing retrofits
• Vincent Van Den Brink (Breakhouse) on retail and hospitality
• Betsy Williamson (Williamson Williamson) on social and gender equity

The post Pandemic effect: Housing retrofits appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Cities across Canada are exploring the missing middle as opportunities to welcome more homes and people in their communities. The term “missing middle” refers to multi-unit housing that falls between single detached homes and tall apartment buildings. It includes row housing, triplexes/fourplexes, courtyard housing and walk-up apartments. These housing forms are considered “missing” because they have been largely absent from urban streetscapes in Canada, including Winnipeg.

As planners working with the City of Edmonton, we too, are seeking to enable medium-density development in the city’s older neighbourhoods. Edmonton’s official plan, the City Plan, envisions a growth of over one million people by 2040, and will be up for public debate in fall of 2020. The City’s Infill Roadmap, which articulates a series of actions to enable medium-scale infill, is also in effect from 2018 to the end of 2021. What both of these policies and initiatives demonstrate is Edmonton’s interest in increasing housing choices, particularly in the missing middle housing range.

But does this development orientation align with industry and consumer demand? Planners and city-builders across the nation have questioned whether households prefer mid-rise housing, and if builders see these housing typologies as more profitable than single-detached or high-rise residential buildings.

Launched in 2019, Edmonton’s Missing Middle Infill Design Competition encouraged conversations around infill and helped the public and development community envision design possibilities — inspiring builders, developers, and architects to work in collaboration on medium-scale housing proposals.

The competition solicited and reviewed design proposals that considered how the missing middle (or medium-density housing) might work on a site of five lots owned by the City of Edmonton. The winning team, adjudicated by a national jury of architects, would be given the opportunity to purchase the site and build their design. The City of Edmonton, in its communications, articulated how it might support the winning team through the development process, inclusive of the rezoning, development permit, and building permit stages. The City of Edmonton envisioned the design as serving as inspiration and a prototype for further missing middle infill development throughout other parts of the city.

Nearly 100 renderings and 30 pro formas, representing more than half a million dollars of architectural design work, were received from Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Seattle, in addition to preliminary registrations from London (UK), Regina, Hamilton, Toronto, and Oklahoma City. The first-place winning design, The Goodweather, by developer Part & Parcel, builder Studio North, and Gravity Architecture, won because it was a good fit for the site, was considered likely to be successfully built and sold, and because its design could be reproduced on other sites. The Goodweather presented a well-conceived courtyard space, and situated its buildings close to the sidewalk — enhancing opportunities for interactions in the public realm. The Goodweather arranged existing housing typologies into a new, exciting configuration that hopes to bring together many demographics and generations into one pocket community. In total, there are 56 dwellings: 14 townhouses designed for young families, 21 single bedroom loft dwellings for students and young professionals, and 21 ground level dwellings designed for seniors. There are 14 single car garages and 6 guest parking stalls, all accessed from the alley.

Applicants to the Missing Middle Infill Design Competition were required to provide a pro forma. This is a document that shows how a development will spend, and make money. A pro forma ignores design and marketing language and gives the “brass tacks” of a project. It answers the critical question: “how much profit will this project produce?” Creating a pro forma requires a lot of assumptions about what materials and labour will cost, how people want to live, and what they will pay for real estate. The assumptions behind the numbers reveal some of the logic of real estate development.

By reviewing the thirty pro formas submitted to our design competition, we sought to answer three questions as part of an analysis on the financial viability of missing middle housing. What do the pro formas from the Missing Middle Infill Design Competition tell us about the most financially-feasible low and medium infill forms? What do the estimated profit margins tell us about the risks applicants see with building infill? What funding sources and financing structures are typical for infill development and how do these differ from greenfield?

What the numbers say

With land value held constant across all projects, the average profit margin for an apartment and row house is identical (11% of revenues). To test the impact of land value reductions, the land value was reduced by 25% for row house and stacked row house projects. Cheaper land makes row housing more profitable than apartments (15% vs 11% profit). Based on the data available for this study, row housing can be competitive with small apartments.

Submissions to the competition offered innovative building design and construction solutions, including mass timber prefabrication and factory assembly, and modular units that could be contracted or expanded to respond to the needs of the user and to site constraints. While these innovative techniques influenced the design of the buildings, none of them created a real edge when it came to estimates of construction costs. This means that developers are interested in innovation (at least in a public design competition), but do not expect these to cut costs.

Nine of the twenty-two projects evaluated proposed rental apartments. Three of these were among the most profitable developments (ranking first, second, and ninth). The remaining six rental projects were the least profitable of all projects. The average profit margin was lower for rental projects than for condominiums (7% vs 13%). However, maximum profit margin for rental projects was comparable to the maximum for condominiums (34% vs 32%). Overall, the financial data suggest that there is not currently a clear advantage for building rental or condominium projects, and that considerations other than pure financial return influence the developer’s choice.

Every developer will set a minimum acceptable margin that depends on what investment options they have and the risks involved. The most common margin used by policy makers, however, is 15%. The average profit margin for this site was only 11%, meaning that for most developers, it is hard to put together a successful project.

With profit margins so low, what can we say about project risk? We might assume it means that developers think infill is a slam dunk, and so they are willing to take a small return. However, when you look closely at project inputs like rent per square foot, construction costs, and condo sales timing in a slow Edmonton market, this does not seem reasonable. In fact, we found more evidence of aggressive targets (or wishful thinking) in the pro formas than conservative estimates. Would you pay $1,900 a month for an 800 square foot apartment in Edmonton? Or spend $380,000 on the same apartment, before condo fees? Would you spend $14 million on an apartment building that would earn you $670,000 annually?

Greenfield development can be done at scale and reproduced over and over, and with little engagement cost or risk. High-rise development is large enough to produce its own efficiencies through scale, and to attract investment from pension funds. Missing middle infill development never gets the scale, the momentum, or the attention to make it an easy win.

What the industry says

To accompany our pro forma analysis, we invited architects, builders, and developers to share their perspectives and assumptions around profit and risk for medium-density housing, and associated financial and regulatory barriers.

Applicants to the design competition perceived their participation as a worthwhile venture and investment because of the opportunity to build their proposal. In fact, the ideas that developer-architect teams explored are, in many cases, being explored for other housing projects. The Missing Middle Infill Design Competition helped to expand our knowledge of what scale of density is preferred and reasonable for the missing middle in Edmonton. Participants noted how the design competition was an opportunity to test new design concepts, and to potentially challenge the City’s current regulations with new innovations.

Our interviews also revealed that members of the industry perceive land values as a challenge to making pro formas for medium-density housing viable. Municipal government affects land value primarily through the development rights (zoning) granted to each parcel. We typically expect that adding development rights will also increase the value of land. The land in the competition was priced at for low-rise apartments, but some projects proposed lower density development, like row housing. These projects could expect to acquire land with less permitted density for lower cost in an open market, as long as upzoning is not expected.

Builders, architects, and developers cited how servicing requirements need to be made clear so that these costs can be appropriately factored into their pro formas. Some of these participants made assumptions that since the competition was put forward by the City of Edmonton, that there would be leniency on permitting timelines and additional incentives to support the winning team’s advancement through the land development process.

The interviews illuminated how design features like amenity space and public space are potentially at odds with density requirements for developments to be profitable. While developers strive to include public space so that their housing projects can entice their intended user demographics, their pro formas did not perform well with them included.

The provision of parking was also seen as a significant expense. The City of Edmonton is exploring the possibility of removing minimum parking requirements, with amendments to the Zoning Bylaw scheduled for public hearing in 2020. If these regulatory changes were factored into the design competition, would the number of parking spaces put forward by architect-developer teams be reduced, and by what measure?

Several financing models were proposed through the Missing Middle Infill Design Competition. All projects require financing for construction, but some considered interesting sources of private equity, such as co-operative housing. All participants agreed that strong design is needed to maximize access to financing.

Given the nature of the design competition, all projects expected rezoning fee reductions or waivers, timely permits, and a positive neighbourhood response. While municipal fees were not a major project cost, interviewees indicated that the success of their proposal depended on minimizing delays and project uncertainty. Part of what made the competition desirable was that there was an assembled site, and the City of Edmonton was taking on much of the community engagement work, reducing uncertainty and timelines for proponents.

Sharpening our pencils

The development of new housing can be complex and costly in the best of circumstances. When it proposes a new form in an old neighbourhood, it can be very difficult to put together a project that can please neighbours, satisfy regulators, attract buyers or renters, and convince banks and investors to put their money in.

So what lessons can we draw from the City of Edmonton’s Missing Middle Infill Design Competition?

We learned that developers and architects are creative and interested in innovating when there is support from regulators, like city planners, to do so. We learned that different infill designs are possible, and even competitive — rental apartments, condominium rowhouses, and even modular, stacking, expandable co-op housing can be viable on paper. If cities want row housing, they need to zone land for row housing and use those zones as a commitment to communities and developers to prevent price creep from pricing out desirable projects. Cities can use their zoning tools, along with long-range planning and engagement, to set community expectations and reduce uncertainty for all involved.

The pro formas tell us that most of the factors affecting real estate development are determined by the markets for labour, investment capital, and housing, which are outside of a municipality’s hands. However, interviews with developers reveal that supportive policies, regulations and proactive engagement can make the difference between a successful infill project, and a failure to launch. Cities seeking missing middle development—like Edmonton and Winnipeg—will need to work with local developers to understand the challenges facing infill in order to find effective solutions. Cities, now more than ever, are eager to sharpen their pencils, and get moving on this type of work. We are excited for the possibilities.

Jason Syvixay is an urban planner currently completing his PhD in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Alberta. He has worked as the managing director of the Downtown Winnipeg BIZ, a planner with HTFC Planning & Design, and more recently, has joined the City of Edmonton to support the implementation of its Infill Roadmap. He has a passion for people and places, and engages in city building that listens to and empowers the community, builds knowledge and capacity, and works towards equity in urban places.

Sean Bohle is an urban planner at the City of Edmonton. He discovered a love for spreadsheets and financial models while completing graduate school at the University of British Columbia, and through subsequent consulting work on affordable housing development. At the City of Edmonton, Sean has worked on policies to provide affordable housing and community amenities from rezoning, and now leads the implementation of the Infill Roadmap.

The post Is ‘missing middle’ financially viable? appeared first on Canadian Architect.