MUCP Design Proposal

NOVEMBER 2023

Design Proposal HousingNow TO: Reimaganing Surplus Public Sites in TO Multidisciplinary Urban Capstone Project

Presented To

Presented by

David Roberts

Ben Murphy, DerekYi, Kristina Antionio Peralta, Pavani Mande, Suzan Ye Htwe, Zhaoye Meng

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Table of Contents 1

Introduction

3

2

Background

4

2.1 2.2 2.3

THE SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL WHY IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPORTANT? IDENTIFYING AN OPPORTUNITY

3

Zoning Envelope

6

4

Design Proposals

7

4.1 4.2 4.2

PROPOSAL 1 PROPOSAL 2 PROPOSAL 3

Assessment Criteria

5 5.1

AFFORDABILITY

5.2

FULFILLING EXISTING BY-LAWS

5.3

PUBLIC BENEFITS

5.4

ARCHITECTURALLY SOUND

5.5

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE

13

6

Pugh Matrix

19

7

Assessment of Top Design Proposal

19

7.1

AFFORDABILITY

7.2

FULFILLING EXISTING BY-LAWS

7.3

PUBLIC BENEFITS

7.4

ARCHITECTURALLY SOUND

7.5

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE

8

Conclusion

24

9

Timeline

26

10

References

27

11

Appendix

31

11.1

LITERATURE REVIEW

11.2

DETERMINING ZONING ENVELOPE

11.3

MEASURES OF SUCESS

11.4

UNIT BREAKDOWN CALCULATION

11.5

DERIVING ESTIMATED UNIT PRICES

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Introduction In the heart of Toronto, a city brimming with life and ambition, a profound challenge exists that reflects a broader, global concern: the affordable housing crisis. Our proposal, which is based on a thorough understanding of the city's evolving urban fabric, seeks to address this issue through the use of innovation, empathy, and strategic planning. This document outlines our comprehensive approach to creating a sustainable, inclusive, and affordable housing solution that not only meets the immediate needs of the city's diverse population but also anticipates future urban living dynamics.

Our journey begins with a look at the current landscape, delving into the historical and socioeconomic fabric that makes up Toronto's housing market. Our endeavour is set against the backdrop of a city where rising housing prices have outpaced income growth, putting a significant strain on a significant portion of its residents. The city's rapid growth, diverse demographics, and evolving urban character add to the urgency of the situation.

In the following sections, we will present an Opportunity Statement that highlights the potential benefits and addresses the project's limitations. This will include a nuanced Problem Overview that will be enriched by new insights from our community partner, Mark, and will lay bare the complexities we hope to navigate. Our proposal does not avoid these challenges, but rather views them as opportunities for innovation and meaningful change.

Zoning Envelope Diagrams and a series of Infographics and Drawings are used to visually and analytically detail the core of our proposal. These elements, handcrafted with care and imagination, will provide a clear and engaging representation of our vision. They will highlight the unique characteristics of each proposed design, such as unit number, Gross Floor Area (GFA), unit pricing, and construction costs, providing a tangible sense of the project's scope and feasibility.

MUCP

3

DESIGN PROPOSAL

To ensure that our proposal meets the highest standards of efficacy and sustainability, we have included a stringent set of Criteria and Success Measures. These benchmarks, along with comprehensive Matrices and a Pugh matrix, will be our guiding tools for evaluating each aspect of the project, ensuring that our solutions are not only innovative, but also practical and achievable.

The Proposed Design section will provide a detailed overview of our proposed development, articulating how each element of the design aligns with our defined success criteria. This section is a collaborative effort that embodies our team's collective expertise and vision.

Finally, in the Conclusion section, we will summarize the main points of our proposal, reflect on our journey, and forecast the likely impact of our vision. A Gantt chart will outline a roadmap for the project's execution, ensuring that each phase is carefully planned and aligned with our overall goals.

Background 2.1 THE SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL We hope that by proposing this design solution, we can help to alleviate Toronto's pressing need for affordable housing. Given the escalating affordable housing crisis, it is critical that we investigate viable solutions to the housing problems of a large number of individuals and families. An allencompassing strategy for the construction of affordable housing would be developed in this proposal, taking into account a variety of factors such as the topography of the site, zoning regulations, and the community benefits. The goal is to develop a design concept that not only provides cost-effective housing but also contributes positively to the overall urban environment through a thorough analysis of site conditions and a study of relevant literature.

Elizabeth Street in Toronto was chosen as the location for this project. To better understand the site and its potential, we conducted a thorough analysis that included a site visit and a review of the literature. Observations were made of housing conditions, infrastructure, and the overall urban environment during the site visit. The data gathered during the tour, combined with photographic evidence, assisted us in understanding the current situation and identifying potential areas for improvement. The neighbourhood exemplifies Toronto's thriving business and residential life. It is more than a plot of land; it is an important location for Toronto's plan for diverse development.

With easy access to public transportation and a variety of local amenities, this site is an ideal location for affordable housing redevelopment, providing an opportunity to make a significant impact on the community's future.

MUCP

4

DESIGN PROPOSAL

2.2 WHY IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPORTANT? In conjunction with the site visit, a literature review revealed Toronto's escalating affordability issues; because it meets the basic needs of all residents for safe and affordable shelter, affordable housing is an important component of urban development. Aside from meeting basic living needs, affordable housing promotes socioeconomic stability and inclusion. It enables people to access vital services, education, and employment opportunities without incurring excessive mortgage or rent obligations. Furthermore, affordable housing promotes vibrant and diverse neighbourhoods, increasing residents' sense of belonging and social cohesion.

The study also emphasizes the crisis's socioeconomic impact. A lack of affordable housing is linked to a number of urban issues, such as increased homelessness, reduced social mobility, and increased economic inequality. These challenges affect not only individuals and families, but also the city's overall economic health and social cohesion.

According to the literature, while Toronto continues to grow and attract new residents, the supply of affordable housing has lagged. As a result of this mismatch, nearly half of Toronto's population spends more than 30% of their income on housing, exceeding the City of Toronto's own housing affordability benchmark. We understand the criticality and urgency of addressing Toronto's affordable housing crisis. The goal of this design proposal is to provide a comprehensive strategy that considers the specific circumstances of the chosen site as well as the obvious barriers posed by the City's existing housing stock. We hope to provide affordable housing that not only provides shelter, but also a more sustainable and equitable future for all occupants by employing innovative and thoughtful design principles.

In short, the construction of affordable housing on our property is in response to a clear and pressing need in Toronto. By addressing this need, the project not only aims to provide relief to those who are burdened by high housing costs, but it also contributes to the larger goal of making the city more equitable and livable for all residents.

2.3 IDENTIFYING AN OPPORTUNITY Above all the major limitations for our project are the zoning restrictions for the site. As the system currently operates, these restrictions trump the socio-economic need for affordable housing in almost every scenario. In fact, if we could solve all of the problems related to the financial feasibility of the site and the current conditions of the site, the zoning restrictions would still make our project obsolete if they were to be followed like scripture. We, therefore, believe in the current climate, these policies are outdated, and while they are to be respected they should not be strictly followed.It is our goal to prove through the exploration of different options how exactly these rules should be broken, as the benefits always outweigh the costs. Through the unique opportunity of this analysis we do not only hope to propose a building for our site, but show how these policies are a detriment to solving the affordability crisis in Toronto.

MUCP

5

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Zoning Envelope

Figure 1: The image diagrammatically represents the different zoning requirements imposed on our site.

Incorporating a zoning envelope in our design proposal is essential because first of all, it serves as a critical visualization tool, enabling us to clearly understand and show the specific zoning restrictions imposed by the city. The envelope illustrates the maximum allowed dimensions, including height, sightline protection and overall massing. By using this zoning envelope, we can ensure that our building not only complies with city restrictions but also achieves optimized space usage within these constraints. However, as mentioned, it has its series of drawbacks.

In essence, it is this zoning envelope that we are trying to push against. Bending and breaking certain rules to expand the area that we can build within. Every time we exceed the confines of this envelope we risk sanctions from the city, and outright rejection in the procurement of a building permit. Regardless, it is our responsibility to test the limits of this envelope and see which calculated risks render the greatest benefit to affordability crisis.

MUCP

6

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Design Proposals 4.1 PROPOSAL 1

Figure 2: The drawing illustrates a plan of Design Proposal 1 with site context.

Figure 3: The drawing illustrates a isometric view of Design Proposal 1 with context.

The first design option is pictured as an L-Shaped building with a tapered wing facing north, it keeps the existing public park in its current location and only minimally decreases in its square footage.

This proposal importantly includes a large commercial space accessed via Haggerman or Elizabeth Street that can and will act in a variety of different ways. This space has been floated as a potential resting area for foreign municipal officers given its proximity to city hall. However, it could also function as typical office space, or different shops and restaurants. It is large, state of the art, and highly adaptable. This area may also feature a lobby into the residential tower of the building.

In order to mitigate the current housing shortage and fulfil affordable housing requirements, the 25story residential building proposes a mix of affordable (36%) and market-priced units with compact footprints, however these units have room to expand within the interior design process if needed.

Currently, these smaller units would be designed to optimize natural light, fresh air, storage options, etc, emphasizing our commitment to residents’ well-being. The building also hopes to feature a variety of shared amenities among its residents including community spaces, green roofs, laundry areas, and potentially bike storage and storage lockers. All of these features are designed to create community within the building and capitalize on the close proximity of the small apartments to enhance residents quality of life.

MUCP

7

DESIGN PROPOSAL

This proposal is also highly adept at addressing the environmental crisis. We hope to integrate energy-efficient appliances, design systems, renewable energy sources, and sustainable materials to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the incorporation of a green roof would aid in stormwater management and energy efficiency, gaining benefits of fulfilling TGS targets. The L-shaped configuration of the building not only serves as a distinctive architectural element but also opens avenues for sustainable practices. Featuring a green roof and dedicated commercial spaces, this design option embraces environmental responsibility while adding functional diversity to the structure. L-shaped structures have many benefits, such as exceptional views, more privacy, more natural light, and adaptable floor designs. Because of its distinctive form, outdoor areas can be used creatively and effectively for wind mitigation and sound absorption.

Their dynamic facade design and visual intrigue add to their unique and appealing architectural presence, even beyond their functional use. Furthermore, the large mechanical penthouse at the summit of the building acts as excellent grounds to capitalize on the immense insolation the building receives and develop a field of photovoltaic panels that will help reduce energy consumption of the building.

At its core, this design proposal revolves around the central themes of sustainability, functionality, and community engagement. By prioritizing affordable housing and public benefits, the design strikes a delicate balance between adhering to regulatory constraints and fostering a sense of community well-being. This holistic approach aims to create a harmonious addition to Toronto's urban fabric, where architecture meets environmental consciousness.

Figure 4: The image depicts the tentative program organisation of Proposal 1 .

TOTAL GFA: 358, 191 SQFT TOTAL RFA: 299,935 SQFT TOTAL UNITS: 333 TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS: 120 (36%) MUCP

TOTAL CONSTRUCTIONCOST: $161,185,950 1 BEDROOM MARKET PRICE: $3040 1 BEDROOM AFFORDABLE: $1230 8

DESIGN PROPOSAL

4.2 PROPOSAL 2

Figure 5: The drawing illustrates a plan of Design Proposal 2 with site context.

Figure 6: The drawing illustrates a isometric view of Design Proposal 2 with context.

The second design option takes the form of an L-shaped building with an angular side that is accompanied by a shorter structure on its side as the podium. This development keeps half of the original park on Bay Street and relocates the other half to Elizabeth Street which adheres to the set rules to have access to the park via Bay Street while also bending it by reducing the park space and relocating it. The development is bounded by two green spaces on either side with a service dock on Hagerman Street.

This 25-story residential building strives to provide affordable units as an attempt to alleviate the current housing crisis. It follows the affordable housing regulations and aims to have 33% of the units affordable with the rest of them being market-priced units. The building aims to have welldesigned units for maximum space utilization, with natural light, ventilation, and storage spaces that accommodate the well-being of the residents. Additionally, this building boasts a community center in its podium that is home to several amenities and services that not only the residents can access but also the entire community in the neighborhood. Because of this, the building encourages social interactions within the community and fosters relationships between the residents and the neighborhoods. Furthermore, the community center can qualify for government funds and grants that could lessen construction and maintenance costs for the entire development. In the main tower, there are some retail spaces and exclusive communal spaces for the residents such as lounges, lockers, laundry facilities, and so on. The tower and the podium come together with the communal green roof that provides the residents with access to their very own green space in the middle of the city.

MUCP

9

DESIGN PROPOSAL

With the growing awareness and concern for sustainability, this building seeks to hit green standards and hopes to incorporate energy-efficient appliances, design systems, renewable energy sources, and sustainable locally sourced materials to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, the green roof fulfills TGS targets and aids stormwater management and energy efficiency.

Lastly, the L-shape building allows room for modular construction which has proven to reduce construction time, cost, and noise. Its shape conforms with the existing built environment and blends into the urban fabric without disrupting the pre-existing urban landscape of the neighborhood.

This design proposal hopes to design affordable housing in a central area of downtown Toronto with an emphasis on aesthetics, comfort, public benefit, and sustainability despite the strict zoning bylaws, economic, and site restraints.

Figure 7: The image depicts the tentative program organisation of Proposal 2.

TOTAL GFA: 406,775 SQFT TOTAL RFA: 351,555 SQFT TOTAL UNITS: 390 TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS: 129 (33%)

MUCP

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $183,048,750 1 BEDROOM MARKET PRICE: $2,952 1 BEDROOM AFFORDABLE: $1,230

10

DESIGN PROPOSAL

4.3 PROPOSAL 3

Figure 8: The drawing illustrates a plan of Design Proposal 3 with site context.

Figure 9: The drawing illustrates a isometric view of Design Proposal 3 with context.

The third design option is envisioned as a terraced structure with the existing public park carefully retrofitted on the west side of the future development. The development proposal has a doubleheight commercial area and a visitor lobby on the ground floor to meet mixed-use program requirements of the city, that enables access through Bay Street and other adjoining public streets, along with a loading dock.

In response to the current housing crisis and affordable housing regulations, the 25-story residential building proposes a mix of affordable (45%) and market-priced units with compact footprints. These micro-units would be designed to maximize natural light, fresh air, storage options, etc, emphasizing our commitment to residents’ well-being. Shared amenities, such as wellness rooms, lounges, community spaces, bike storage, lockers, and laundry facilities, are strategically dispersed throughout the building, fostering social interactions among residents. Adding to the social program, the building's structure incorporates communal green terraces and private balconies simultaneously adhering to view protection policies, angular plane rules, and height adjacencies. The deliberate design decisions aim to address the opportunities of micro-living without compromising on users’ quality of life.

MUCP

11

DESIGN PROPOSAL

In response to the environmental crisis, we hope to integrate energy-efficient appliances, design systems, renewable energy sources, and sustainable locally sourced materials to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the incorporation of a green roof would not only fulfill TGS targets but also help in contributing to stormwater management and energy efficiency.

Moreover, the box-like shape of the building offers opportunities for modular construction, allowing for design efficiency, and reduced construction cost, time, and noise. The building exterior borrows from wedding-cake style architecture and uses glass and cladding that would allow the future development to blend with the Downtown Toronto context in terms of form and materiality.

Thus, the main concept of this design proposal is to prioritize affordable housing and public benefits, within a rigid set of regulatory, sustainability, and economic constraints. The design approach seeks to seamlessly blend functions, aesthetics, sustainability, and community well-being in Toronto’s urban landscape.

Figure 10: The image depicts the tentative program organisation of Proposal 3.

TOTAL GFA: 264,700 SQFT TOTAL RFA: 237,700 SQFT TOTAL UNITS: 265 TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS: 119(45%)

MUCP

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $119,115,000 1 BEDROOM MARKET PRICE: $3,390 1 BEDROOM AFFORDABLE: $1,230

12

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Assessment Criteria To evaluate our designs properly and responsibly, we developed a series of criteria that we considered important to the success of our building. Furthermore, within these larger criteria we established sub-criteria that are explained within the appendix. It is important to note that we developed our proposals with these criteria in mind, and we also used them to evaluate our winning design. Therefore, the designs themselves are often quite successful in meeting these criteria.

This section of the Design Proposal both explains our rational in creating certain criteria, and shows the very evaluation of our proposals by said criteria. Each criteria is weighted by a certain priority to reflect how much we value said criteria. After that process is complete, we can measure all the criteria together in a Pugh Matrix.

Additionally, it is worth noting that each score is given a maximum value of 5/5. This is a rudimentary way of simplifying a variety of factors considered, however it is effective in rendering a final winning score.

MUCP

13

DESIGN PROPOSAL

5.1 AFFORDABILITY This is evidently the priority when it comes to developing affordable housing. Though, as made clear by our literature review, it is a more complicated process than just simply setting the prices at below market rate. Ultimately, affordability ends up being the culmination of all our factors at play.

Though, the most distinctive factor that dictates what we can do in terms of affordability are the financials of the building. The overwhelming cost of construction in a downtown setting combined with the ever-climbing maintenance costs for any building is enough to dissuade most developers from undertaking our project. However, because we are building affordable housing, we are subject to a number of grants from the federal and provincial government that may help us reach an affordable level. It was our primary goal to deliver affordable housing to the people of Toronto, and therefore we will judge our designs with the utmost scrutiny when it comes to the financial feasibility of the project. It is our top priority and is weighed with a 27% stake in our Pugh Matrix.

Sub-criteria for the design: Unit Market Price Market Feasibility Unit Affordable Price Construction cost Maintenance cost Potential for grants Commercial Area Effectiveness

Name

Proposal 1

Proposal 2

Proposal 3

Unit Market Price

4

3

5

Market Feasibility

2

3

0

Unit Affordable Price

3

3

3

Construction Cost

3

2

4

Maintenance Cost

3

2

4

Potential for Grants

3

4

3

Commercial Area Expected Effectiveness

5

0

3

Total

23

17

22

MUCP

14

DESIGN PROPOSAL

5.2 FULFILLING EXISTING BY-LAWS The city of Toronto has a vision for our site, and this vision does not necessarily correlate with what we are trying to bring them. Therefore, we must step carefully around Toronto’s by-laws to create the proposal we envision for all our stakeholders, but primarily our future residents. Usually, we can fall within the guidelines that they lay out for us, but sometimes we must overstep the boundary for the benefit of the site as an affordable housing project. We value this category, however it is only weighed with a 16% influence in our Pugh Matrix.

Sub-criteria for the design: Meets Urban Design Guidelines Adheres to the Current Zoning Label Matches Inclusionary Zoning Policy Protects the Current Sightlines and Skyline

Name

Proposal 1

Proposal 2

Proposal 3

Meets Urban Design Guidelines

4

4

4

Adheres to the Current Zoning Label

3

2

4

Matches Inclusionary Zoning Policy

5

5

5

Protects the Current Sightlines and Skyline

5

5

5

Total

17

16

18

MUCP

15

DESIGN PROPOSAL

5.3 PUBLIC BENEFITS While our building is entering the fabric of the city to fill a gap in the affordable housing supply, it still remains a part of the city itself and must serve to satisfy more than just its direct financial or political stakeholders. The building will attempt to please the public by adhering to the guidelines that the city has set out for us surrounding density and neighbourhood identity, though it will also carve out its own identity by redesigning the layout of the site, alongside choosing the most appropriate commercial resident for the location. Being beneficial to the public is an important part of our proposal and it is weighed at a value of 22% of the total weight in our Pugh Matrix.

Sub-criteria for the design: General Accessibility Public Park Access Commercial Area Utility Transit Oriented Design Matches the Civil Precinct Designation Co-Exists with the Neighbourhood

Name

Proposal 1

Proposal 2

Proposal 3

General Accessibility

5

5

4

Public Park Access

5

4

2

Commercial Area Utility

4

0

3

Transit Oriented Design

3

5

3

Matches the Civil Precinct Designation

3

2

2

Co-Existing With the Neighbourhood

4

5

4

Total

24

21

18

MUCP

16

DESIGN PROPOSAL

5.4 ARCHITECTURALLY SOUND It is an interesting dichotomy to simultaneously stand out in the city while also fitting in, though we look to achieve a certain level of satisfaction in this area. As stewards of design and architecture we have identified many categories of architectural success that we can strive towards within our design. Ultimately, finding a blend between the history of our site, and our vision for the site’s future is paramount in rendering an architecturally stimulating and functional design. However, the actual construction of our vision is also worth considering from within this lens. All in all we have faith that we will produce a design that satisfies all these requirements and as such it only weighs 15% towards our decision making process.

Sub-criteria for the design: Satisfying the Building Code Number of Units Site Layout Functionality Modular Construction Capability Incorporation of Existing Public Art

Name

Proposal 1

Proposal 2

Proposal 3

Satisfying the Building Code

5

5

5

Number of Units

3

4

3

Modular Construction Capability

3

5

4

Site-Layout Functionality

4

4

4

Incorporation of Existing Public Art

4

5

4

Total

19

23

20

MUCP

17

DESIGN PROPOSAL

5.5 ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE The climate crisis is the only rival to the affordability crisis in terms of priority for the city of Toronto, and therefore must be given its due in our design process. Meeting green standards is the minimum we can do, but we can look to go above and beyond- satisfying LEED, or the upper echelons of the Toronto Green Standards. In doing this, we can also generate more funds for our project. However, going green often comes with an inflated cost. There is a balance we must reach, though being close to net-zero is something that is important to us, even only as a guideline throughout the design process. As such, this category has a weight of 20% in our Pugh Matrix.

Sub-Criteria for the design: Reaching Net-Zero Amount of Green Space Hitting Green Standards Generation of Funds via Green Objectives

Name

Proposal 1

Proposal 2

Proposal 3

Reaching Net-Zero

4

4

4

Hitting Green Standards

4

4

5

Amount of Green Space

4

4

3

Generating Funds via Green Objectives

4

3

4

Total

16

15

17

MUCP

18

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Pugh Matrix Now that we have evaluated our buildings on the basis of each induvial criteria and sub criterion, we can total their scores and evaluate them in a deciding Pugh Matrix. The result of these scores will decide which building we propose for the site as we are confident in our evaluating matrices. They take into consideration the weights of each criteria.

Name

Proposal 1

Proposal 2

Proposal 3

Affordability

3.3

2.4

3.15

Adheres to Current ByLaws

4.25

4

4.5

Beneficial to the Public

4

3.5

3

Architecturally Appealing

3.8

4.6

4

Environmentally Sustainable

4

3.75

4.25

Total

3.8

3.5

3.7

Assessment of Top Design Proposal Proposal 1 barely outmatched our other proposals, and according to our criteria and measured in the Pugh Matrix. The goldilocks approach of this design makes it ideal in a variety of categories.

Chiefly, its way of bending zoning regulations without completely disregarding them, while also remaining finically and environmentally feasible, make this option the best choice for our site. We are excited to continue working with this proposal, molding and shaping it into something that can benefit everyone involved with the project, as well as the City of Toronto itself.

To better explain the rational behind this winning proposal’s scores, we have explained in detail how it satisfies our various criteria.

MUCP

19

DESIGN PROPOSAL

7.1 AFFORDABILITY Sub-criteria for the design: Unit Market Price: Proposal 1 presents the opportunity to bring to market, expensive, but not astronomically expensive market rate units. This is because of its intermediate construction cost and percentage of the building made up by affordable units. The pricing of this proposal’s units combined with its ability to generate revenue from its commercial spaces allow for it to be the most appealing to developers, which is one of the largest hurdles we identified in the construction of affordable housing.

Market Feasibility: Like the rest of our proposals, this building scores low on market feasibility. The high asking price for market rate units mandated to offset losses through the rental of affordable units means that each proposal is likely to price itself out of the realm of reasonability. However, because this building has the potential to generate grants and other means to offset construction and maintenance costs, it is a possibility that the estimates for market rate unit rental prices proposed in this document are higher than they will be in actuality.

Unit Affordable Price: The city of Toronto mandates certain standardized prices for affordable housing based on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s estimates. Thus, none of our proposals gain any sort of significant advantage in this category.

Construction cost: The winning design was the second most expensive to construct being the second largest of the designs we proposed. This construction cost was estimated based on the average rate of $450 per square foot in the construction of a skyscraper. Its intermediary standpoint on this criterion made itself once again more financially feasible than our designs. It sits at the perfect medium in which its cost is not overly expensive, dissuading developers from taking on the project, however it is large enough where the construction cost is a worthy investment for developers and the city alike.

Maintenance cost: Maintenance costs were again estimated and will be elaborated upon in further iterations of the project after more substantial research. However, the blend of commercial and residential usage on this site make it more expensive to maintain than a purely residential building, but less expensive than a community space which is subject to a variety of vandals and other liabilities.

Potential for grants: This proposal qualifies for minimal grants relating to affordable housing and cannot compare to the public support that Proposal 2 renders through its inclusion of a community centre on the site, however, these grants are still effective in offsetting construction costs, which is what they are required to do.

Commercial Area Effectiveness: This criterion is where this option excels. Due to its large commercial base the building can explore many pathways in generating income to further offset construction costs, and later, turn a profit. It is the many options that makes this proposal so exciting as when it comes to measuring commercial utility we are not confined to a certain future and the certain financial targets that must be hit within that future. The effectiveness of the site therefore has exponential potential and will greatly suffice in accomplishing its main goal; expunging extravagant costs from the units themselves.

MUCP

20

DESIGN PROPOSAL

7.2 FULFILLING EXISTING BY-LAWS Sub-criteria for the design: Meets Urban Design Guidelines: This design manages to rudimentarily satisfy Toronto’s Urban Design Guidelines. While the furthering of the design process will cause for the details of the design to be ironed out and some conflict with said guidelines may arise, currently, the design has no major flaws in terms of these regulations.

Adheres to the Current Zoning Label: This design adheres in large part to the current zoning label.

It effectively acts as a both commercial and a residential area and does not exceed the height limits placed upon the site. However, it does reduce the park space which is not explicitly something that we can do in our design process, and it ignores the rules adhering to the 45-degree angular plane that dictates our site. It also exceeds the total GFA allowed by the zoning label.

Matches Inclusionary Zoning Policy: Nonetheless, it is the breaking of these zoning restrictions that allow it to satisfy the unit number and estimated occupancy numbers that Inclusionary Zoning policy demands of our site.

Protects the Current Sightlines and Skyline: Like the rest of our proposals, this design was very respectful of the rules surrounding the sightline and skyline protection of City Hall. The building does not appear in any of the protected vistas that the city established.

7.3 PUBLIC BENEFITS Sub-criteria for the design: General Accessibility: It is hard to detail the accessibility of the proposed building without interior floor plans, however, we believe that this building will have little to no hindrances relating to its accessibility.

Public Park Access: This design leaves the majority of the existing park intact on Bay Street. While we may later propose to better develop this park into a more functional greenspace, as is, this is the design that leaves most of the park in its original location. The result of this is not only more inline with what the city envisions when it comes to their public parks, but it is undeniably more accessible to the general public than a design that hides the park space on Elizabeth St behind our building.

Commercial Area Utility: While, as mentioned, the exact usage of this proposal’s immense commercial space is undecided, the possibilities are endless. And just as this makes this option more appealing financially, it makes this proposal more socially intriguing. One option we considered was that of a space for municipal officials to stay when they are visiting from out of town in something akin to a hotel. This novel space in combination with a more traditional retail or service establishment would be beneficial to the community’s image. However, other options could be explored to better serve the community itself, such as the community centre proposed in Proposal 2. It is the elasticity of this design that makes it so appealing.

MUCP

21

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Transit Oriented Design: This building exceeds the population minimums set out by transit-oriented standards. However, through its commercial space, could make the new and old transit stops in and around the site more appealing destinations for a variety of travelers. While it doesn’t present the same draw as a community space might, the variety of uses on the site draws a variety of people, justifying the use of transit to reach the site and earning its place in a transit heavy neighbourhood.

Matches the Civil Precinct Designation: This design importantly is the only one of our proposals that matches this criterion. Its provision of affordable housing in combination with its potential for acting as a site for municipal services act as the perfect blend of past and present for the intersection of Bay and Dundas considering the neighbourhood’s history as The Ward and its current designation as the site for City Hall.

Co-Exists with the Neighbourhood: Matching the current neighbourhood is both important for the city and for us as designers. The proposed design does this in a variety of ways. Structurally by not impeding on existing skylines, and transitioning well with the historical buildings around it, the building should seamlessly fit into a neighbourhood with a lot of history. Socially, the fact that this building is going to be primarily affordable housing, honours the history that surrounds the building.

Finally, the adaptability of the commercial space will be designed in its final form to match the needs of the neighbourhood, maximizing interest and benefit from and to the public.

7.4 ARCHITECTURALLY SOUND Sub-criteria for the design: Satisfying the Building Code: Like the rest of our designs, the plan for this building is to completely satisfy the building code, although the intricacies of completing this task are yet to be outlined.

Number of Units: Perpetuating its existence as the goldilocks option, this design has not the highest, but not the lowest number of units. This balance allows it to be affordable from a developer’s standpoint, but also from a resident’s perspective as the larger number of units, in combination with the revenue generated from the commercial space, will make market rate units more affordable. This option boasts 36% of its units as affordable options, which is above the 33% minimum required by Housing Now TO, and far above the standard 2% in new builds in Toronto.

Site Layout Functionality: All of our designs present functional layouts in terms of service ports and pick up and drop off locations. This site will likely use Hagerman Street as its main entrance and exit point as well as its designated carpooling location as it keeps the park in its existing location on Bay Street. This adheres to the guidelines the City lays out in terms of residential entrances. It makes great use of its setting, maximizing its tricky location behind City Hall, with close proximity to both residential and commercial streets.

MUCP

22

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Modular Construction Capability: As with all of our proposals, this design looks to maximize the potential to build the site using modular construction, as construction in this part of the city may be costly and difficult. This design is not as optimized to modular construction as our other proposals as it incorporates more acute angles, however, most of the units will be able to be constructed modularly, and in the end all of the units may be able to be constructed this way, the only sacrifice would be time.

Incorporation of Existing Public Art: Having the public park in its original location solves a lot of problems when it comes to the public art that exists on the site. Most of it will be able to remain in its original location as well, and if not, it will only be moved minimally. The design's flexibility also allows for the existence of new art to be created on the site.

7.5 ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE Sub-criteria for the design: Reaching Net-Zero: This design is especially equipped to reach net-zero or come close. The large green roof on the top of the commercial space coupled with the flat surface on top of the residential tower combine wonderfully to cut the urban heat island effect and generate solar energy.

Being in a location that features minimal tall buildings, the location of the photovoltaic panels on the roof of the residential tower is particularly exciting as they will be able to generate large amounts of green energy. Furthermore, this option will incorporate a variety of green design techniques unavailable to our other options because it potentially has more money to play with by way of its commercial space.

Amount of Green Space: Due to the large green roof in this design and the largest public park of the three options, this proposal has the most overall green space of any of our designs.

Hitting Green Standards: This option has the potential to reach the highest levels of the Toronto Green Standards, and it will attempt to do so. While the plan for how this can be achieved is yet to be created, we will start by making a promise to the environment and use only the most energy efficient appliances, insulation and glazing technology.

Generation of Funds via Green Objectives: Naturally following from achieving certain green standards we will be able to generate more funds for our project, making the greening of the building not only a beneficiary to the health of the city and our residents, but the financial feasibility of the project. This design’s capability to achieve and surpass green standards should be viewed as an investment rather than an expense.

MUCP

23

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Conclusion Now that we have settled on a “winning” design proposal, or at least the one that we think will service the space and community the best given the various stipulations we were handed as creatives, we would like to compare it to the binding zoning restrictions that we have grappled with throughout the design process. This is a matter of taking the zoning envelope and seeing what regulations can be sacrificed to build more affordable housing, as is desired by Mayor Chow’s new policies.

Currently, the CR 6.0 (c6.0; r3.5) SS1 (x2251) zoning label for the site is extremely restrictive, with the chief offenders being the maximum r3.5 FSI, the setback standards mandated by being adjacent to a public park (or Open zoning label), and the sightline protection of City Hall. To begin, the r3.5 FSI restricts the total residential floor space we can build to 7875m2 or 84,766 sq ft. This is not even enough space to meet the bare minimum in floor space as required by the City’s inclusionary zoning policy which is 8000m2. This proves to us that this space is misidentified as an area that should be primarily commercial, and our concerns are validated by the very fact that we are undertaking this project, as it is an exercise in reimagining underutilized city spaces. To build upon these initial damming zoning restrictions we are also subject to rules that attempt to protect public parks by mandating a 45° angular plane on buildings adjacent to said parks. Finally, we are heavily restricted by the protection of the sightlines of City Hall from Nathan Phillips Square (as displayed in the figure below).

Zoning Envelope

Remove r3.5 FSI (Proposal 3)

Remove setback Standards (Proposal 1)

Remove CR zoning Designation (Proposal 2)

Total RFA

84,766sqft

237,700sq ft

299,935sq ft

351,555sq ft

Total Usable RFA

59,336ft

166,390sq ft

209,955sq ft

246,089sq ft

Total Units

95

265

333

390

Total Affordable Units

38 (40%)

119 (45%)

120 (36%)

129 (33%)

Total Affordable Units if Percent is Standardized to 33

31

87

111

129

Increase in Units Compared to Zoning Envelope

0

170

238

295

MUCP

24

DESIGN PROPOSAL

During the design process, we attempted to push the barriers of these restrictions to see what opportunities certain deviances would render, specifically pertaining to total unit numbers. Using the same process that we undertook to calculate the total units for our actual proposals, we calculated the total units that the current zoning label allowed us to create and compare it to what we could create by removing certain parts of the zoning label. It was this process that made up the essence of our design process.

We opted not to test the limits surrounding the protected sightlines as we believed it was unrealistic for us to assume that these relatively new laws (2018) would be easily abandoned by the city. However, the above table shows undoubtedly how limiting the current zoning is in terms of building more housing and more affordable housing, which is our priority.

All in all, we believe that the option we have chosen to pursue based on our created criteria will not only result in a realistic and needed building for our site, but it will help to at least commence a conversation with the city about the necessity of certain regulations that limit affordable housing.

Being the happy medium in almost every one of our more social categories, and having excellent financial and environmental potential makes Proposal 1 the clear choice for us to continue to develop. We hope to show how a little bending of the rules can result in hugely beneficial movements for the City of Toronto.

Figure 11: The image shows the net gain and loss of GFA by complying with zoning regulations for the three design proposals

MUCP

25

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Timeline

MUCP

26

DESIGN PROPOSAL

References

MUCP

27

DESIGN PROPOSAL

MUCP

28

DESIGN PROPOSAL

MUCP

29

DESIGN PROPOSAL

MUCP

30

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Appendix 11.1 LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION Seemingly, as Toronto’s affordability crisis comes to a head, the solution to said crisis becomes ever clearer; build more affordable housing. However, this solution is far from one-dimensional. Evident from our site alone and the series of problems plaguing it; affordable housing has work to do to carve out its own niche within Toronto. As a group which is part of the proposed solution to the housing crisis and is responsible for the establishment of more affordable housing, we must ask ourselves, can affordable housing exist within a city full of so many other crises? Or will the overwhelming number of criteria designers and planners, like ourselves, face force the affordability crisis onto the backburner? To answer this question, we looked at what scholars, city officials and media outlets alike have previously said on the topic.

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS Toronto is now more expensive to live in than New York, London, and San Francisco (Fung et al., 2020). In fact, it is the 6th most expensive city in the world and has found itself in a vicious cycle where housing and rental prices are rising 4 and 2 times faster respectively than wages (Fung et al., 2020). The result is a city where nearly 50% of its population spends over 30% of their annual income on shelter (Fung et al., 2020). Which is, by the city’s very definition, a population in need of affordable housing (City of Toronto, 2022e). Toronto, it would seem, is in dire need of affordable housing; yet it is not being built (Bond, 2023). Housing Now, which is distinct from the group in which we are working, has been criticized by the media for having no effect on the landscape of affordable housing within Toronto despite it being part of their official plan (Smee, 2023) (City of Toronto, 2022a). Albeit that is not necessarily the fault of Housing Now or CreateTO, the city’s real estate management division. Housing affordability and subsequently affordable housing are heavily impeded by a variety of financial, social, and environmental barriers (Liu & Ong, 2021).

On the financial side of things, Toronto isn’t responsible for the quagmire it faces (Bond, 2023). The pandemic vastly impeded the city’s ability to carry through its own policy surrounding the construction of new affordable housing units (Smee, 2023) but ultimately it was federal and provincial interference that slowed any progress that CreateTO and Housing Now had previously made (Bond, 2023). This is acknowledged by the City of Toronto who rebels in their own bureaucratic way by stating in their 2023 Review of the Housing Now initiative that new federal fiscal caps cause development funds to fall way short of the necessary capital needed to create new affordable units in the city (Bond, 2023). This, in conjunction with the province’s introduction of Bill 23—which removes developer fees for the construction of affordable housing—essentially eliminates the city’s ability to create a new housing supply (Bond, 2023). CreateTO’s entire 2022 budget was 17 million dollars (Gupta, 2023), which is barely enough to erect one building in downtown Toronto in the current market, let alone develop a feasible solution to the affordability crisis (Smee, 2023). Bill 23 is solely responsible for removing 120 million dollars of revenue that the city could invest into housing (Bond, 2023).

The result is a city where nothing gets built but the population keeps rising.

MUCP

31

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Thus, the problem with affordability is branded as an issue of supply and demand (Friedrich et al., 2023). Pinki (2019) points out that Toronto is receiving far more immigrants than it has housing for, and the City of Toronto also recognizes this as an impending problem, though it knows it is stuck (Bond, 2023). As Toronto’s population increases and its number of available units does not, the prices of said available units will only continue to rise (Monkkonen & Manville, 2019). This is of course unless a vast amount of housing units can be injected into the city, which is the reasoning behind Ontario's Bill 23, the adequately named “More Homes Built Faster Act” (Clark, 2022).

Though it is evident that this effort, while valiant, is fruitless. Scholars, media, and activists alike critique it for perpetuating urban sprawl, annihilating municipal planning power, undermining regulations and above all, actually making houses less affordable through the development of luxury homes (Smee, 2023) (Lafleur et al., 2023) (Wittenbel, 2020). It is legislation like Bill 23 that prompts scholars such as Freeman (2002) or Friedrich et al. (2023) to state that the housing crisis isn’t actually a crisis that involves housing.

Paradoxically these authors state that the housing crisis exists independent of the housing market and more so is a matter of income inequality relative to housing costs (Freeman, 2002). This can be explained through Fung et al.’s metric, which was previously mentioned, and states that compared to income growth, housing prices rise 4 times faster (Fung et al., 2020). If the solution to the affordability crisis lies at an equilibrium between the rise of income and housing costs, these scholars argue that instead of increasing the supply of houses to reach this equilibrium, governments must increase income to match the rate that housing costs are growing (Freeman, 2002). They point to the fact that the affordability crisis exists in stagnant populations to highlight that the crisis stems from something more complex than supply and demand (Kenan Institute, 2020). Canada sits on the largest housing bubble of all time because these prices are being inflated artificially (Rherrad et al., 2020). So, it is the government’s job to subsidize housing to match income or increase income to match inflated housing or both (Friedrich et al., 2023). Those who distrust the pure economic argument for the affordability crisis see housing as a socio-political issue which raises other questions surrounding affordability. Of course, these new sociological questions must still interplay and ration with the fact that in places like Toronto, the population is still rising and the question of “where will all these new people live?” still trumps any other.

Subsidization doesn’t solve a shortage (Friedrich et al., 2023).

MUCP

32

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Despite 21 sites being selected by the city as part of the Housing Now program, only one has broken ground (Bond, 2023). This is because the city relies on private developers to ultimately take the final steps of development and financially these steps are often not worth taking (Bond, 2023). The profit margins are slim when it comes to developing affordable housing, especially the way that Housing Now sets it up (Smee, 2023).

The city is barely able to contribute financially to the project but still owns the land and 33% of the units; a deal that developers just can’t seem to stomach even with the draw of such prime real estate (Bond, 2023).

However, perhaps, due to the accelerating climate crisis, the lack of affordable housing being built is a good thing.

As urbanization, floor space, and homes per capita all increase globally, controlling the microclimate of cities becomes ever-important (Mathey et al., 2011). The densification of cities directly correlates to the exacerbation of the Urban Heat Island effect, a phenomenon that is making cities dangerously hot (Loibl et al., 2019).

Simultaneously, densification impedes the natural wind-cooling processes of the city while increasing pollution (Loibl et al., 2021). Yet densification is part of Toronto’s official plan meaning it’ll receive cooling via the shade the new buildings are to provide (Loibl et al., 2019) despite oxymoronically having “sunny streets” as another point of emphasis within the official plan (City of Toronto, 2022c). This confusion is not to say that the Official Plan is overall inadept to deal with climate change, it addresses it substantially (City of Toronto, 2022a).

However, it does this independently of its discussion of intensification, despite the two being intrinsically linked (Loibl et al., 2019). This oversight of the overlap between climate management and the densification processes is perpetuated again by Bill 23 which fails to address the problem in its own right.

Bill 23 proposes that instead of addressing the housing crisis by building inwardly, as the city suggests, development expands outwards into the suburbs and the Greenbelt (Clark, 2022). It goes as far as to give developers the political power to do this by undermining environmental regulations that previously defined Ontario’s housing strategy (Wittenbel, 2020). The passing of the Bill was controversial and, in many ways, undemocratic as it strips conservation agencies as well as citizens of their rights to object to proposed subdivisions (Pothen, 2022). The actions undertaken as a result of Bill 23 are now under investigation by the RCMP (Jabakhanji, 2023). Moreover, developments in the suburbs—even without considering that in Toronto’s case protected farmlands are at stake—are not any more “green” than development in the city (Goldstein et al., 2020). Housing in the suburbs tends to be larger, removes more green space and contributes more greenhouse gas emissions than housing in the city (Goldstein et al., 2020). Since cutting greenhouse gases is central to all action against climate change—despite ignored effects on the urban microclimate—the carbon-friendly solution; increased density, is the one that the province and the city should invest in. Which of course, is what they intend to do; with a series of progressive environmental regulations on the buildings (Smee, 2023). The financial burden of these regulations being another reason that private developers are yet to take the solution to the affordability crisis into their own hands (Smee, 2023). There is no winning for Housing Now. Ultimately, the affordability crisis is going nowhere. Regardless of the dramatic need for housing, the city and its planners find themselves in a bog of financial, social, and environmental woes that they cannot seem to escape.

All positives that seem to emerge within the solution to the crisis such as Housing Now, YIMBYism or progressive green standards are subsequently undermined by greedy developers, ties to gentrification or a delusional provincial government with an incomplete affordable housing strategy. At this point, the scholars have analyzed and debated all there is to overview. The stage is set, and it is only distinctive action from groups like ourselves that stand to break the stalemate within the affordability crisis and deliver the affordable housing that the city needs today, or better yet, yesterday.

MUCP

33

DESIGN PROPOSAL

These new socio-political questions, combined with the existing housing shortage, are what propels the YIMBY (yes in my backyard) movement to the spotlight. These pro-housing activists welcome the idea of more affordable housing within their own neighbourhoods instead of forcing affordability out of the growing city (McNee & Pojani, 2021). This whole movement is, of course, a response to NIMBYism (not in my backyard), which is defined by a group of people who are welcome to the idea of social housing or similar solutions to the housing crisis, as long as those solutions are not built within their own neighbourhoods (McNee & Pojani, 2021).

These vocal, well-off, well-connected residents protest the construction of affordable housing in their neighbourhoods by citing a host of unproven claims (McNee & Pojani, 2021). These claims vary from things as simple as an increase in overcrowding on the streets and within services to an apparent depreciation in home value, or even something as absurd as a “change in community character” being a repellent for housing projects (Monkkonen & Manville, 2019). Eventually, all these claims and complaints boil down to an intrinsic fear and resentment of the “new people” that these affordable developments will introduce (Monkkonen & Manville, 2019). With these “new people” often being ones of different ethnic or social standing than the neighbourhood’s current norm (Monkkonen & Manville, 2019), NIMBYism is very much a socio-political discussion rather than an economic one. Especially considering that studies such as the one that Dube et al.

(2023), confirm that new affordable housing projects do not have any effect on existing home values.

Being born out of systemic racism and classism, NIMBYism still has devastating real-world effects on the solution to the housing crisis (McNee & Pojani, 2021). Scholars like Mulroy and Ewalt (1996) or Mueller and Tighe (2007) have recognized this for a long time and work towards educating groups on the social benefits of affordable housing. For Mueller and Tighe this means shifting the paradigm back to a day where improving housing was a priority both for planners and the community. To do this they suggest changing policy to create mixed-income neighbourhoods (Mueller & Tighe, 2007), a concept completely absent from Toronto’s official plan. These mixed-income neighbourhoods allow for the upper echelons of the socioeconomic structure to see how low-income families operate and sympathize with them (Mueller & Tighe, 2007). Putting low-income families in high-income neighbourhoods also means that high-income families—or in other words the people behind the NIMBY movement—would be more willing to spend their tax dollars on social infrastructure benefiting low-income families because these improvements would also benefit them (Mueller & Tighe, 2007).

Mulroy and Ewalt suggest a far more direct route to battling the social crises that housing poses. They believe that while educating the ignorant NIMBY movement is important, the whole process should be expedited by putting social workers directly on urban planning panels and forcing cities to be designed with social conditions in mind (Mulroy & Ewalt, 1996). In many ways, it is this expedited process that we see coming into effect with the work that YIMBY is doing within the city (CAEH, 2022). However, because of the speed in which neighbourhoods are being slated for redevelopment in the name of YIMBYism, the movement has been called “the final frontier of gentrification” (Wyly, 2021). It is criticized for its carelessness and ties to neoliberalism (Wyly, 2021), despite its seemingly genuine roots in activism (CAEH, 2022). Regardless of its underlying motivations, the movement can only take the city so far.

MUCP

34

DESIGN PROPOSAL

11.2 DETERMINING THE ZONING ENVELOPE Zoning label defining Hagerman and Elizabeth: CR 6.0 (c6.0; r3.5) SS1 (x2251) This label can be broken down into subsections to be better understood.

CR: Our site is located within a commercial-residential zone. Meaning it is a mixed use area and must be used as such.

6.0: This is the total maximum density allowed on the site in terms of FAR (floor area ratio) (a.k.a.

FSI (floor space index)) which is calculated by taking the built area of the site (Gross Floor Area (GFA)) and dividing by the total lot area. Our lot is 2250m2, meaning we can build a total of 6 times that amount of built area.

Total Built Area / Total Lot Area = FSI Total Lot Area x FSI = Total Built Area 2250m2 x 6.0 = 13500m2 Therefore, we can build a total of 13500m2 of floor space on our site. Though it is unlikely that we have to. (c6.0; r3.5): This is the maximum density in FSI permitted as it refers to the commercial and residential portions of our building. Since the commercial area is designated an FSI of 6.0, it, like the total site, can take up 13500m2 of built area. However, the residential portion is only permitted an FSI of 3.5, meaning, as the current zoning stands, we can only construct 2250m2 x 3.5 of floor space designated to residential. This is equal to 7875m2 of residential floor space.

It is also important to understand in this section that just because 6.0 FSI of commercial and 3.5 FSI of residential is permitted as a maximum density, the two numbers do not add together. Our site still has a 6.0 FSI total maximum density. Essentially, if we decide to build 6.0 FSI of commercial, we will have no FSI remaining for residential, which of course is unacceptable considering we are tasked to build affordable housing.

Additionally, just because FSI refers to “floor space” that does not mean it equates to stories. We can choose any combination of floor areas as long as we stay below 13500m2 of built area. This is a complicated process of checks and balances and can be demonstrated in the table below.

Stories

Commercial Built Area (CBA) per floor

Total CBA

6

2250m²

10

Commercial FSI

Residential Built Area (RBA) per floor

Total RBA

Residential FSI

GFA

Total FSI

13500m²

6.0

0m²

0m²

0.0

13500m²

6.0

1350m²

13500m²

6.0

0m²

0m²

0.0

13500m²

6.0

7

0m²

0m²

0.0

1125m²

7875m²

3.5

7875m²

3.5

12

562.5m²

6750m

3.0

562.5m²

6750m²

3

13500m²

6.0

24

234.375m²

5625m²

2.5

323.125m²

7875m²

3.5

13500m²

6.0

MUCP

35

DESIGN PROPOSAL

This table also assumes that we want to use all of our allocated FSI, and it assumes that we want to have both commercial and residential use on every floor, which is unlikely.

SS1: This is the setback standard that our building will have to adhere to. It is Setback Standard 1, which was designed for high-rise buildings. This setback standard has a variety of intricate regulations but importantly, our base building must be 4.5m tall, though no taller than 0.8x the width of the street, and our building can be setback from the street a maximum of 3m. The tower of the building however must be set back 3m from the edge of the street facing wall. The tower also has a maximum residential area of 750m2 per floor. Additionally, if we wish to build two towers on our site, they must be 25m apart. Importantly, because of our proximity to a public park, we are mandated to incorporate a 45° angular plane into our design, jutting out from the park. (x2251): This signifies the previous exceptions to the zoning code in our area that we are allowed to utilize. These exceptions refer mainly to the setback standards for the buildings constructed on Foster Pl. and Bay St., directly adjacent to our site. Their exact requirements are seemingly unavailable on the City of Toronto database.

Zoning label defining our site within Larry Sefton Park: O our site within Larry Sefton Park: O O-zones are usually public parks, and in this case that holds true. Public parks are permitted a maximum GFA of 50m2 and a maximum building height of 4m. If we wish to build in the park or next to Bay Street at all, we will have to change these standards. Unfortunately, there is no mention of changing the zoning of a public park within the Toronto Official Plan as parks are an important part of the city’s plan. As far as we can tell, moving Larry Sefton Park would be trailblazing planning.

MUCP

36

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Stipulations Mandated by the Downtown Secondary Plan and the Official Plan While zoning labels are site specific, Toronto is also defined by a series of larger plans that have their own requirements for our plot of land. Importantly our building is located within an area slated for Transit Oriented Development (TOD). This means that our building must try to do something unique with its given valuable space to make the transit stops located in the area more appealing to riders.

Building affordable housing would satisfy this criterion. Being in a TOD zone also requires that we have a minimum of 3.0 FSI on our site. Finally, it requires that for every hectare of land there be 2000 residents. Our site is built upon 0.25 hectares of land and therefore we must accommodate a minimum of 500 residents according to that distinction.

Our site is also located at the junction of two “priority retail streets”, Dundas and Bay Street.

Therefore, the city will only approve the construction of our building if it is of high-quality design with a focus on adaptability. Though it also requires the commercial section of our building, mandated by the CR zoning label, to be on the priority retail street, or in our case, Bay Street. This conflicts with the already existing park that is located at the corner of Hagerman and Bay St. It also conflicts with the fact that parks are also recommended to be located on “great streets”, which is a label that Bay also holds. It is likely that we will not have to move the park from Bay St. because of these conflicting guidelines and the fact that the park already exists but the commercial area does not. Regardless, in priority retail areas, the residential area of the building is recommended to be situated next to local streets, which in our case is Elizabeth, Hagerman, or Foster Pl. Of all the regulations constricting our design process, none is more intrusive than the limitations dictated by being in such proximity to City Hall. Firstly, and understandably, we cannot build taller than the towers of parliament, meaning we can only build a maximum of 76.0m or approximately 25 stories. The usual standards for our building would have been 92m – 152m or 30 to 50 stories.

Additionally, Nathan Phillips Square is a “sun-protected space” meaning in no way can we shade the area. However, there is an interesting clause here that states the day that this shaded area is calculated is September 21st. Meaning, potentially, if we shade the square on other days of the year our proposal may still be approved. Finally, the view between the two towers of City Hall is a protected space and nothing may appear in between them as viewed from Nathan Phillips Square.

This is a significant problem as the area primed for our tower according to other zoning and planning regulations would appear between the towers. Larry Sefton Park is the ideal location for our tower if we do wish to avoid being seen from Nathan Phillips Square. However, as mentioned, it is unlikely that we will be able to build on this area. Building around this guideline will be crucial to our Design Proposal.

Inclusionary Zoning Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) is an umbrella term summarizing the City’s new principals looking to solve the affordability crisis. Part of these principals are the Housing Now sites within the city, one of which being that we are privileged to work on. IZ, in a general sense, demands that newly built buildings must include 22% of units at an affordable price. However, since we are part of the Housing Now program, 33% of our units must be held at an affordable price for 99 years—which is the length of the lease on the land. Furthermore, since our building is limited to being mid-rise by City Hall, we have to meet certain mid-rise requirements. These requirements demand that we have at least 100 residential units and 8000m2 of residential GFA. Reaching 100 units is not an issue but achieving 8000m2 of residential GFA is currently impossible in the CR 6.0 (c6.0; r3.5) SS1 (x22 51) zoning label.

MUCP

37

DESIGN PROPOSAL

11.3 MEASURES OF SUCCESS This section extrapolates on the Measures of Success. Explaining in depth the thought process behind our criteria.

AFFORDABILITY Unit Market Price: As much as we want to create the cheapest units, if we can maximize profits from the units within the building that will be listed for market rate, we will consider that a success.

As the construction of our building will be a heavy investment from a developer, we must be able to entice them in some way, the profit from the market rate units will be our prime draw. Like the affordable units, the cost of these units reflects the size, quantity, construction and maintenance costs, as well as the services that we are able to provide the residents such as laundry or community spaces.

Market Feasibility: As much as we can manipulate the prices of our units that will reach the market, we have to do it within reason. Developing a large number of affordable units demands that the units that do have potential to make a profit must make an immense profit just to break even. So, while mathematically and economically we can justify extreme prices for units both on the low and high end of the price scale, socially we may not be able to. Therefore, we can measure our design proposals on their ability to stay within the competitive market, while our units might have to be more expensive, we must justify that through design and amenities, otherwise the units that we do put on the market may never sell.

Unit Affordable Price: Affordable units are our chief priority. However, creating the cheapest possible units is beneficial for multiple reasons. Firstly, the cheaper we can create and market the units, the more units we can provide to a city and a neighbourhood that desperately needs them.

Additionally, the cheaper the units are, the more beneficiary they are financially to the people that do end up living in them. This price results from both the size of the units and the cost to construct and maintain said units. We can also charge less for units if we build more of them because we will theoretically see a larger profit margin the more units we construct.

Construction cost: Construction costs are climbing and currently sit at an average price of $350 per square foot, therefore, minimizing this cost will be essential to our success. By projecting the cost of glass, concrete, steel, and other building materials, alongside the personnel cost of construction, we will be able to determine which of out proposals are most finically feasible from both a developer’s and a resident’s perspective. We can minimize construction costs by choosing a proposal with a simpler built form, as well as cutting corners when it comes to community services and green standards. Essentially, the more that we create, the harder the project becomes to finance.

However, the more services there are, the more money we can charge for rent and offset some of these costs, making those proposals perhaps more appealing to developers.

.

MUCP

38

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Maintenance cost: Maintenance will be a large part of the ongoing fees that the building must pay.

Minimizing this cost is tricky due to the downturn in services that comes with it. Cleaning as well as staffing the building is included in these costs. The larger the building is, the harder it becomes to maintain it. Additionally, the cheaper the appliances and the materials that we use, the more likely we are to have to replace them. Therefore, maintenance costs are in some ways an inverse of the shortcuts that we take during construction. However, some costs are inevitable and are included in all of our designs.

Potential for grants: Each design proposal can be tailored to qualify for government grants.

Commercial Area Effectiveness: As demanded by our zoning protocol we must include commercial space on the lower levels of our building. Maximizing the rent generated from this space will be key to offsetting building and maintenance costs, therefore allowing us to make more units affordable

FULFILLING EXISTING BY-LAWS Meets Urban Design Guidelines: The City of Toronto has several guidelines that we will look to fulfill. These guidelines are highly specific and while they are not mandates, they are heavily recommended by the city. The guidelines dictate everything: building forms, retail facades, environmental practices, bird-safety, public-art budgets, interior design, unit size allocation, community space, accessibility. Adhering to these guidelines will result in a functional, comfortable, practical building, and therefore it is paramount that we try to obey them.

Adheres to the Current Zoning Label: The zoning label is a set of more permanent guidelines that outline the building’s envelope. These guidelines are hard to break, though all our proposals must break them to match other city guidelines and achieve other goals we have set for ourselves.

Therefore, we will measure our proposals on their ability to operate within these guidelines as much as possible.

Matches Inclusionary Zoning Policy: This set of protocols is of extreme importance to our project as it operates as the city’s instructions as to how to insert more affordable housing into the city.

These guidelines dictate floor space index, percentage of units as affordable housing, and a general inclination towards creating affordable spaces. We will look to follow these guidelines as closely as possible to create the most affordable and compatible housing for our community.

Skyline & Sightline Protection: Due to the extreme proximity to City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square, we must pay extra attention to how our building affects the already existing sightlines and skyline of the city. We will measure our proposals on their ability to not impede upon or make major changes to the protected views of the city.

MUCP

39

DESIGN PROPOSAL

PUBLIC BENEFITS General Accessibility: Being beneficial to the public means being beneficial to everyone, regardless of their specific accessibility needs. We will attempt to design a building that allows for everyone to thrive, no matter their circumstance. Our designs will be weighed on how inclusive the spaces are, especially the commercial space in which everyone is welcome.

Public Park Access: There is an existing public park on our site, it is imperative that we keep this park in some shape or form on our site. Designs that heavily modify the park or make it hard for the public to access will be measured harshly within our matrices. Designs that remove the park are unacceptable as the park is not only part of the City’s vision, but our vision for the future of the site.

Commercial Area Utility: As implored by the city, the site must have commercial space, however we have identified a difference between the existence of commercial space and the existence of a functional commercial space. We will attempt to measure what exact use for the incorporated commercial space would be most beneficial for the community and the residents of our building. To do this we will differentiate between service and good based commercial areas, analysing the financial and social impacts of each type of space.

Transit Oriented Design: Another mandate of the city is that since our site is located within a short distance to major transit stations, we propose a design that makes people want to get off at those stops. Essentially, to fill this requirement we must make our site an attraction for large numbers of people. We can do this in multiple ways, including but not limited to, the simple building of needed affordable housing, the inclusion of ample green space and public art, or the rendering of an effective and versatile commercial space capable of facilitating community building events.

Furthermore, to be “transit oriented” our proposals must provide housing for a certain number of people, making the transit stops in the area useful for more people.

Matches the Civil Precinct Designation: Vaguely mentioned within Toronto’s official plan, the area in which our site is located is a “civil precinct”. This means that we should cater our site to the civil duties of the city. As it currently stands there is municipal office space on the site, fulfilling this requirement. Unfortunately, many of our other measures of success stray from this core commitment to civility. We will measure our designs on their ability to somehow stick to the original purpose for the site as space for bureaucracy to flourish.

Co-existing with the Neighbourhood: The city of Toronto has a unique vision when it comes to our site made clear by an ironically complicated set of interwoven documents. Allowing our site to thrive within these conditions but also carve out its own niche in the city and the neighbourhood is an important criterion. This evaluation will see how well our proposed design fits in with the other buildings around it, respects its heritage, but also serves the community in such a way that makes it an attractive proposal outside of its ability to develop affordable housing.

MUCP

40

DESIGN PROPOSAL

ARCHITECTURALLY SOUND Satisfying the Building Code: Because this a is nonnegotiable, all of our proposals will follow the building code.

Number of Units: This is an important factor for both rendering a financially and socially feasible design. The number of units will allow us to generate more revenue to fund the project despite it costing more money to build a large number of units. Additionally, many units will allow us to create a community within our building and make the inclusion of community spaces such as gardens, gyms or laundry rooms more justifiable. Furthermore, the number of units can act as a direct measure of our design as the more units we have, the more affordable housing we can provide, which is our top priority.

Site Layout Functionality: Measuring the functionality of the site is a matter of observing what each site decides to include when it comes to the availability of their park space, in combination with where the main entrance and exit points for the building are located. This includes the entrance points for both vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic, as while our space will not have a parking lot, we must cater to the modern phenomenon of ride-sharing programs and allocate space for these services (and others) to function. If we design a site counterproductive to traffic flow, we have failed.

Modular Construction Capability: The location of our site is extremely downtown and congested.

Building in and around the tight confines of historic buildings and active municipal zones is extremely difficult. Therefore, we look to modular construction as an opportunity to construct our building successfully and quickly. In the design process, this means that we have to cater to the structure that modular housing prefers, the rectangle. Literally being building blocks akin to Lego, modular housing units must be able to stack upon each other without unexpected delays. Therefore, keeping the shape of our building square with right angles is important to our design.

Incorporation of Existing Public Art: Our site is home to a plethora of art projects, including union monuments and Section 37 agreements. Protecting this art is important to earning the respect of the developers and the city, as it was their efforts that created the art in the first place.

Furthermore, because this art is often monumental, we want to respect the public’s access to this art and the history that the art provides to the site. We are okay with moving the art, but keeping visible is of the utmost importance.

MUCP

41

DESIGN PROPOSAL

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE Reaching Net-Zero: Reaching Net-Zero is a complicated process of trial and error which includes planning, testing, simulating, and redesigning. It is likely that this process is beyond the scope of the current state of the project, however, it is still an important goal for our design, and we must keep it in mind during these relatively early stages of the development. To do this, we measured our buildings on their potential for reaching net-zero by analysing their ability to host photovoltaic panels, their conductivity of wind channels and their use of glass as it relates to insulation.

Amount of Green Space: A large limiting factor of our site was the existing “green space” on the existing grounds. Moving and manipulating this green space was the foundation for our designs and measuring our success in completing this process is an important part of discovering which design best suits our needs. The sheer amount of green space on our site is a good way of measuring which design succeeded in honouring the existing park, while also taking steps to transform the park into something more functional than the series of concrete benches it is today. Additionally, green space on the site exists in more than just the public realm; private green areas also exist within our proposed designs and this criterion incorporates those areas in its evaluation of green spaces within our designs.

Hitting Green Standards: Much like net-zero, the details of hitting green standards are a discussion for the future. However, we can estimate how well each building may hit green standards based on certain factors like surface area covered by green roofs, construction materials used, estimated emissions and green transit options induced by the design. Toronto has some of the world’s most progressive green standards, and meeting and surpassing these standards is a primary goal of ours.

Generation of Funds via Green Objectives: Certain financial incentives are provided by the city, province, and federal government for adhering to and outperforming particular green standards. In an effort to generate funds, we must consider the specific requirements of these grants when proposing our designs for the site. The opportunity to generate this funding will directly mature from our ability to create an environmentally friendly building through the same criteria outlined in the “Reaching Net-Zero” and “Hitting Green Standards” sub-sections.

11.4 UNIT BREAKDOWN CALCULATION A driving criterion for analyzing our proposals was how many units we could create with each proposal. This was a matter of calculating our GFA, allocating it into CFA and RFA, and then designating the RFA into certain unit sizes alongside circulation space such as elevators, hallways, and walls. From our architectural drawings for the zoning envelope, Proposal 1, Proposal 2, and Proposal 3 we knew our GFA, RFA and CFA for each space.

Furthermore, we knew that according to the Urban Design Guidelines for building affordable housing, units have expected minimum sizes, as well as expected distribution of certain unit sizes.

They are listed as follows…

1 Bedroom: 40% of Useable RFA, min. 525sqft 2 Bedroom: 40% of Useable RFA, min. 650sqft 3 Bedroom: 15% of Useable RFA, min. 900sqft 4 Bedroom: 5% of Useable RFA, min. 1100sqft

MUCP

42

DESIGN PROPOSAL

We calculated the Useable RFA by roughly designating 30% of RFA to circulation space.

Therefore, say we were calculating the number of units for our second and largest option, we can derive the occurrence of each unit size in our building.

GFA= 406,775sqft RFA= 351,555sqft Useable RFA (URFA)= 70% of RFA Useable RFA= 246,089sq ft Once we have URFA we can allocate spaces for units.

URFA for 1 Bedrooms: 40% of URFA URFA for 1 Bedrooms: 98,436sqft 1 Bedroom Size= 525sqft Total 1 Bedroom Apartments= URFA for 1 Bedrooms / 1 Bedroom Size Total 1 Bedroom Apartments= 98,436sqft / 525sqft Total 1 Bedroom Apartments= 187 URFA for 2 Bedrooms: 40% of URFA URFA for 2 Bedrooms: 98,436sqft 2 Bedroom Size= 650sqft Total 2 Bedroom Apartments= URFA for 2 Bedrooms / 2 Bedroom Size Total 2 Bedroom Apartments= 98,436sqft / 650sqft Total 2 Bedroom Apartments= 151 URFA for 3 Bedrooms: 15% of URFA URFA for 3 Bedrooms: 36,913sqft 3 Bedroom Size= 900sqft Total 3 Bedroom Apartments= URFA for 3 Bedrooms / 3 Bedroom Size Total 3 Bedroom Apartments= 36,913sqft / 900sqft Total 3 Bedroom Apartments= 41 URFA for 4 Bedrooms: 5% of URFA URFA for 4 Bedrooms: 12,304sqft 4 Bedroom Size= 1100sqft Total 4 Bedroom Apartments= URFA for 4 Bedrooms / 4 Bedroom Size Total 4 Bedroom Apartments= 12,304sqft / 1100sqft Total 4 Bedroom Apartments= 11

MUCP

43

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Finally, once we know how many of each unit sizes occur in the building, we can total the number of units in the building. These calculations all assume for the sake of simplicity at this stage that we follow the urban design guidelines and build all of our units that have the same amount of bedrooms to their minimum size and that we build the certain percentages that these guidelines suggest.

Total Units in Proposal 2= Total 1 Bedroom Apartments + Total 2 Bedroom Apartments + Total 3 Bedroom Apartments + Total 4 Bedroom Apartments Total Units in Proposal 2= 187 + 151 + 41 + 11 Total Units in Proposal 2= 333 The same process was repeated for all of our design options.

11.5 DERIVING ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE An important part of creating affordable housing is knowing the actual prices that these units will be rented for. However, this is a convoluted and complicated process, just as the design of the building is.

It begins with knowing, or estimating, how much our building is going to cost to construct. We can do this by taking the estimated GFA for our proposals and assuming that the average construction cost in the city is going to be about $450 per square foot. This cost is an amalgamation of general averages read in literature and the information we received from our community partner. Once we have the total construction cost (which doesn’t include any grants or specific loan durations/interests) we can once again estimate how much we will have to generate in revenue from the rental of our units to break even. However, the calculations that we completed only uses revenue from the units to pay for all of the space in the building, regardless of if that space is residential. Therefore, the unit prices that we estimated are on the high side. The prices we need to charge to break even after 10 years of a construction loan, approximately, assuming that every building costs the same per square foot (which is untrue) is…

Monthly Revenue From Each Bedroom Needed to Repay Construction Loans in 10 Years 1 Bedroom: $1,969 2 Bedroom: $2,438 3 Bedroom: $3,375 4 Bedroom: $4,125 After we know what it takes to break even, we can begin to explore how our building will profit, because after all, it is unlikely that any developer will commit to constructing our building unless some sort of profit is promised. To know how much we should profit, we must first know how the market is working, thus, we looked up the market prices for different size bedrooms in Toronto, garnering the following results…

Average Rental Prices in November 2023 1 Bedroom: $2,615 2 Bedroom: $3,441 3 Bedroom: $3,938 4 Bedroom: $5,750 MUCP

44

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Knowing this is helpful, but not entirely helpful as the market is ever changing. So, we also derived the amount of money that we should charge per unit over 10 years to make a reasonable 10% profit per unit…

Monthly Revenue From Each Bedroom Needed to Repay Construction Loans in 10 Years with 10% Profit 1 Bedroom: $2,166 2 Bedroom: $2,682 3 Bedroom: $3,713 4 Bedroom: $4,538 However, a metric of 10% profit per year is only one way of determining rental prices and we wanted to be more broad in our estimates. So, we also used the “1% model”, which stipulates that the “landlord” charges 1% of the total price they paid for the property for monthly rent. To calculate this we first found what each unit would cost to build based on the minimum square footage required by the City of Toronto, and then took that square footage and multiplied it by the $450/sq ft that we used to model the construction costs. The results were as follows…

Individual Apartment Costs to Build 1 Bedroom: $236,250 2 Bedroom: $292,500 3 Bedroom: $405,000 4 Bedroom: $495,000 1% Rule Average Apartment Rents Monthly 1 Bedroom: $2,362 2 Bedroom: $2,925 3 Bedroom: $4,050 4 Bedroom: $4,950 After all of these estimates we ended up with three drastically different models on how to charge for our building if we were to bring it to today’s market; the market value, the 10% profit model and the 1% rule estimation. To find a happy medium we averaged these models to produce an “ideal” price for our market units, which is listed below…

Average of Market Rate, 10% Profit and 1% Rule Prices 1 Bedroom: $2,381 2 Bedroom: $3,016 3 Bedroom: $3,900 4 Bedroom: $5,079

MUCP

45

DESIGN PROPOSAL

All of this information is helpful and would be more helpful if we were developing a building set to go to the market at the going rate, however, we are developing affordable housing and must also take into consideration the rates for affordable housing in Toronto. These rates are standardized by both the municipal and federal government. Toronto uses specifically 80% of the Average Market Rate as established by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) during January of the current year. These rates are substantially lower than the market as they are averages of what residents are currently paying, rather than what a vacant apartment might be rented for.

Furthermore, the rates established by the CMHC do not scale through the apartment sizes in the same way that the market does. For example, a market rate 1 bedroom apartment is over $3000 dollars per month cheaper than a 4 bedroom apartment, yet, through the CMHC’s averages, a 1 bedroom apartment is only $700 dollars cheaper than a 4 bedroom apartment. Regardless of the intricacies of how the CHMC established their Average Market Rates, they are established, and the City of Toronto mandates that these are the rates used for affordable housing. They are as follows…

Average Affordable Apartment Costs as of January 2023 (80% of CMHC market rate) 1 Bedroom: $1,230 2 Bedroom: $1,449 3 Bedroom: $1,677 4 Bedroom: $1,910 These prices are substantially lower than the ideal rates that we would like to charge, and since we include a large percentage of affordable housing in each of our proposals, theoretically we must make up the lost revenue by increasing the variable price of the market rate units. To do this we developed the following series of equations which render a very rough idea of how much we should be charging for each unit size.

Ideal Total Revenue of a Certain Unit Size (ITR) = (Total Market Rate Unit Revenue (MR) + Total Affordable Unit Revenue (AR) ITR= (Total Units of a Certain Size (TU) x Ideal Market Rate for Units of a Certain Size (IMR)) MR= (Total Number of Market Rate Units of a Certain Size (TMU) x Actual Price for Market Rate Units of a Certain Size (AMR)) AR= (Total Number of Affordable Units of a Certain Size (TAU) x Mandated Price for Affordable Units of a Certain Size (MAP)) Where the Certain Sizes are either 1 Bedroom, 2 Bedroom, 3 Bedroom, 4 Bedroom TU= (TMU + TAU) TAU= (TU x % Affordable Units) TMU = (TU – TAU)

MUCP

46

DESIGN PROPOSAL

During this process for each unit size in each building, we had the following constants, and say we were calculating the price we have to mathematically charge for a 1 bedroom apartment in our third option…

TU= 127 IMR= $2,381 MAP= $1,230 % Affordable Units= 45 The calculation process would be as follows…

ITR= TU x IMR ITR= 127 x 2,381 ITR= $302,387 ITR= MR + AR $302,387= MR + AR AR= TAU x MAP TAU= TU x % Affordable Units TAU= 127 x 45% TAU= 57 AR= TAU x MAP AR= 57 x $1,230 AR= $70,110 ITR= MR + AR ITR – AR= MR MR= $302,387 – $70,110 MR= $232,277 MR= TMU x AMR TMU= TU – TAU TMU= 127 – 57 TMU= 70 MR / TMU= AMR AMR= 232,277 / 70 AMR= $3318

MUCP

47

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Therefore, we must charge $3,318 for a 1 bedroom apartment in our third option if we want to make the same money that we would if all of our units were market rate. This is not necessarily something that we have to do, we just thought it would be a good base point in creating a financial plan for our buildings and measuring which might be the most successful financially and therefore possibly most appealing to a developer.

We repeated the above process for every size unit in every design option, the results are below…

Proposal 1 Unit Rental Monthly Prices 1 Bedroom Market: $3,040 1 Bedroom Affordable: $1,230 2 Bedroom Market: $3,884 2 Bedroom Affordable: $1,449 3 Bedroom Market: $5,244 3 Bedroom Affordable: $1,677 4 Bedroom Market: $6,664 4 Bedroom Affordable: $1,910 Proposal 2 Unit Rental Monthly Prices 1 Bedroom Market: $2,952 1 Bedroom Affordable: $1,230 2 Bedroom Market: $3,791 2 Bedroom Affordable: $1,449 3 Bedroom Market: $5,052 3 Bedroom Affordable: $1,677 4 Bedroom Market: $6,889 4 Bedroom Affordable: $1,910 Proposal 3 Unit Rental Monthly Prices 1 Bedroom Market: $3,390 1 Bedroom Affordable: $1,230 2 Bedroom Market: $4,303 2 Bedroom Affordable: $1,449 3 Bedroom Market: $5,567 3 Bedroom Affordable: $1,677 4 Bedroom Market: $8,248 4 Bedroom Affordable: $1,910

MUCP

48