General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[ac3r]

I always like using this below example when I am discussing balconies with developers and other clients.

What would you rather have more? A place to stand out for a smoke, drink a coffee or store your bike etc on a little protruding concrete plate that will rarely get used because its use function is limited by many variables? Or would you rather have that space become more adaptable and usable space inside the home itself? I show this and other images that help illustrate just how much space you lose by having a balcony but how much more you gain for your actual home if that space is not wasted on a balcony.

Here is an example of a 1 bedroom + den condo/apartment unit with a large balcony. It then shows how instead of having this balcony remain a nearly void, unusable space it could be readapted. Suddenly, that 1 bedroom + den unit has a lot more potential. It goes from a 1 bedroom unit capable of housing 2 people, to having the space to build a unit that can house 4 people, a gain of about 33%.

Here are some other examples using different unit sizes, showing what percentage gain you could achieve if instead of using protruding balconies, you instead either a) enclosed them, or more ideally b) simply increased the floor plate of the building itself.

Now of course building design guidelines that cities impose on developers unfortunately play a huge role in how a building can be designed. A big reason why so many residential towers and skyscrapers in Toronto, such as the one I live in, have these balconies that wrap around the entire building is because there are rules to how big the floorplate of a building can be which causes everything from design challenges to physics challenges (picture a computer CPU heatsink...yeah the building is doing the exact same thing as that in terms of energy). The cities in the Region of Waterloo also have their own guidelines that offer real unfortunate challenges and limitations. But provided those didn't exist or were loosened up, then you could begin to design and construct residential towers that can actually offer people more space. I think this is something that really needs to be looked at if we want to keep suburbs from growing. If we want people to have their families live in urban areas of cities, then we need to be able to provide spaces for them.

[panamaniac]

I'd rather have a three season "sunroom". I've never thought that balconies make any sense in the Canadian climate, although a very large apartment with a large terrace would have obvious attractions.

[tomh009]

Now of course building design guidelines that cities impose on developers unfortunately play a huge role in how a building can be designed. A big reason why so many residential towers and skyscrapers in Toronto, such as the one I live in, have these balconies that wrap around the entire building is because there are rules to how big the floorplate of a building can be which causes everything from design challenges to physics challenges (picture a computer CPU heatsink...yeah the building is doing the exact same thing as that in terms of energy). The cities in the Region of Waterloo also have their own guidelines that offer real unfortunate challenges and limitations.

Would glassed-in balconies (as typically used in Finland, for example) still count against the FAR etc?

[ac3r]

That mostly depends on the local rules which are unique to each city. In most cases it will require changes to planning rules.

Many architects in Canada do want to start changing this. Even if they can't use that balcony space to increase actual indoor space of the building, it could indeed at the very least be enclosed so its adaptive uses increase. To quote the Building Design Partnership Quadrangle of Toronto:

Currently, the roadblock to enclosing our balconies is not in its technical challenges, but our attitude towards them. Balconies are widely perceived as a prerequisite of a quality condo unit, but we argue that its adapted use in a larger, more functional unit will be highly desirable for demographics not adequately served currently. Simultaneously, we tackle key climate change issues of operational and embodied carbon in doing so. In our current practice where newly constructed units are decreasing in size but balconies remain constant, we need a method to enlarge our existing condo stock incrementally, giving the opportunity for balconies to adapt.

For this to happen, city planners need to propose policy changes that encourage this practice. Architects and consultants are responsible for resolving the technical obstacles, finding construction methods that are cost effective for both the tenant and the condo management group. In thinking towards the future, developers and designers need to examine new ways to make the balcony better adaptable for change.

Toronto’s balconies are an important opportunity for us to evaluate our existing building stock, and to take progressive action to address key problems of our housing market. Toronto’s balconies are an opportunity for us to design, and adapt.

The balcony is really the LARPing suburbanite who wants to be a city dweller's version of a green front and back yard or a garage: most likely entirely unnecessary, underutilized and a total waste of money, a reduction in available housing units, has negative environmental impacts and so on. That's why I hate the argument that "well you can sneak out for a smoke...you could drink your coffee out there". That is ignorant and misses the more important points of maximizing our land use in the most ideal way we can for those who choose to live in the city.

[dtkvictim]

The balcony is really the LARPing suburbanite who wants to be a city dweller's version of a green front and back yard or a garage: most likely entirely unnecessary, underutilized and a total waste of money, a reduction in available housing units, has negative environmental impacts and so on. That's why I hate the argument that "well you can sneak out for a smoke...you could drink your coffee out there". That is ignorant and misses the more important points of maximizing our land use in the most ideal way we can for those who choose to live in the city.

Your last sentence here is such an absurdest micro-optimization which completely misses the macro issues. Bike-shedding at its finest.

I already have little respect for the modern architect and developer, for their detachment from the reality of the average person and what they want, and your attitude here is sort of proving my view. I don't think I have ever, a single time, been to a house or apartment with a garage, balcony, or back yard that wasn't actively used and valued. In fact, I have none of those and it's a major pain point in my living arrangement. Front yards I would almost completely agree on (though I don't think they are intrinsically without value).

Sure, remove legal requirements that are forcing yards and balconies to be made, and let market forces decide what gets built. But don't be so ready to enforce the opposite, or presume on behalf of people that you think you know better than themselves what they actually want.

[Bytor]

I dunno about you all, but I spend a decent amount of time on my balcony. Eating meals, tending my container gardening, reading.

[panamaniac]

I dunno about you all, but I spend a decent amount of time on my balcony. Eating meals, tending my container gardening, reading.

All things that can be done equally well in an enclosed sunroom.

[Acitta]

I noticed on House Sigma that a block of 4 properties on Mill Street South of Stirling are for sale, numbers 239, 243, 247 and 251. I posted on this thread back in January about 3 of the houses having a lot of backyard trees removed. I was told last year that #263 was sold for a condo development and the one next to it (#257) also appears to be empty. If some company manages to own all of these, that could be a big development location.

[panamaniac]

I noticed on House Sigma that a block of 4 properties on Mill Street South of Stirling are for sale, numbers 239, 243, 247 and 251. I posted on this thread back in January about 3 of the houses having a lot of backyard trees removed. I was told last year that #263 was sold for a condo development and the one next to it (#257) also appears to be empty. If some company manages to own all of these, that could be a big development location.

OK, although I'd rather see redevelopment on the other side of Mill - those houses/businesses have been shabby looking for decades.

[KevinL]

Ah, but these back onto a nice green park and residential beyond; the others back onto industry.

[Acitta]

I noticed on House Sigma that a block of 4 properties on Mill Street South of Stirling are for sale, numbers 239, 243, 247 and 251. I posted on this thread back in January about 3 of the houses having a lot of backyard trees removed. I was told last year that #263 was sold for a condo development and the one next to it (#257) also appears to be empty. If some company manages to own all of these, that could be a big development location.

OK, although I'd rather see redevelopment on the other side of Mill - those houses/businesses have been shabby looking for decades.

Those houses are rather shabby looking too, especially from the rear, and they have big backyards.

[Bytor]

I dunno about you all, but I spend a decent amount of time on my balcony. Eating meals, tending my container gardening, reading.

All things that can be done equally well in an enclosed sunroom.

But that doesn't mean that balconies go unused.

One thing I cannot do in a sunroom is put up my bird feeders.

[ijmorlan]

All things that can be done equally well in an enclosed sunroom.

But that doesn't mean that balconies go unused.

One thing I cannot do in a sunroom is put up my bird feeders.

Sounds like your balcony gets pretty well used. I think it’s probably true on average that balconies are underused, by which I mean roughly speaking that their occupants would, given the chance, convert them to indoor space, but clearly it’s not universally true.

I think the same is true of garages, especially second and third garages, as well.

[danbrotherston]

But that doesn't mean that balconies go unused.

One thing I cannot do in a sunroom is put up my bird feeders.

Sounds like your balcony gets pretty well used. I think it’s probably true on average that balconies are underused, by which I mean roughly speaking that their occupants would, given the chance, convert them to indoor space, but clearly it’s not universally true.

I think the same is true of garages, especially second and third garages, as well.

Given that garages can be converted to indoor space, but usually are not, is indicative that this isn't true. People might prefer storage to garage (this is pretty clear) but indoor space conversions are pretty rare.

That being said, space is generally more at a premium in apartments than homes. But as someone who lived in an apartment without a balcony, I can tell you that it was sorely missed. Being able to go outside for a breath of fresh air without going all the way out of the building is a major quality of life improvement on apartment living. I think folks here are under rating it. Just because something is infrequently used does not mean it is not highly valuable.

Also, just because people would make some choice about their living arrangements does not mean it actually maximizes their QoL. How many people commute 2 hours each way to work in the GTA just to own a larger detached home instead of a smaller row house closer in. All data indicates these people are making choices which harm their QoL.

[tomh009]

One thing I cannot do in a sunroom is put up my bird feeders.

Glassed-in balconies typically have multiple large windows that swing or slide open, so you could do that and still keep bird feeders, if that's your preference.