Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 291

I don't use Facebook anymore, but I was recently sent this . It is a post by a reporter for The West End Phoenix asking people from the community what they think of the JUNCTION sign on top of Junction House . As of right now, there are 217 comments and, if you scroll through them, you'll see that they are actually overwhelmingly positive.

Some people were critical of the fact that, depending on what you consider to be the boundaries of the Junction, this sign may or may not actually be in it. Some see Junction House as belonging to the West Bend neighborhood. So here is yet another real estate developer stretching boundaries and renaming neighborhoods.

I don't know, neighborhood boundaries are a funny thing. They're often amorphous and they often change. Here's what Google believes to be the boundaries of the Junction:

As you can see from the map, the whole point of the sign was to mark one of the entrances to the neighborhood. Although, Junction House seems to sit on contested lands; Google Maps shows it as simultaneously belonging to the West Bend. Whatever the case, it is really great to see that the vast majority of people seem to love the sign.

My favorite comment is this one here: "Love it. My kid recognizes it and always yells that we are close to home." I mean, this was our hope. We wanted to create something that could become a symbol for the area, help to reinforce its existing identity, and also bring people delight. The fact that kids are loving it makes it that much better.

Perhaps this is proof that we shouldn't be so rigid when it comes to the design of our cities. A little color, and some LEDs that look like neon, can be a positive thing. Just ask the kids.

This week, I received a notice in the mail that a neighbor to Mackay Laneway House is seeking variances for their own laneway house. I immediately thought to myself, "oh, the hypocrisy." Here is a neighbor that vehemently opposed my Committee of Adjustment application back in 2017 and now wants to do something similar.

It's also not like you need minor variances in order to build a laneway house today. They are, as many of you know, permitted as-of-right. That's how MLH was ultimately built. We went straight to building permit. But in this case, the request is for 7 variances to the current by-law. The build aspires to go above and beyond.

As I'm sure you can imagine, there's part of me that wants to be a real asshole here. But of course, that would run counter to many of the objectives that we regularly cover on this blog: more housing, revitalized laneways , and so on. So I can't do that. It's directionally the right city building move, and they have my full support.

One of the things that you'll notice on real estate listings in France is an Energy Performance Diagnostics (EPD) rating. In French, it gets reversed, and so it's a DPE (diagnostic de performance énergétique). What it tells you is how much energy the dwelling (or building) consumes and how much greenhouse gas it emits. And it is a requirement on all real estate listings and for all dwellings, except those that are occupied for less than 4 months per year. The output of this diagnostic is a rating from A (best) to G (worst).

According to FT , this is how primary residences in France rank today:

Less than 5% of homes are rated A and B (the most energy efficient). And many more are rated G and F. Beyond just being energy inefficient, this is potentially a problem because there are penalties and restrictions for the lowest rated homes, one of which is that you are not allowed to rent out the property. Right now and as of January 1 of this year, the upper consumption limit is 450 kWh per square meter per year. Go above this and the home becomes ineligible.

This number is also planned to reduce over time :

• January 1, 2023: Rental ban on properties with G+ energy label

• January 1, 2025: Rental ban on all properties with G energy label

• January 1, 2028: Rental ban on all properties with F energy label

• January 1, 2034: Rental ban on all properties with E energy label

Now here's what this is thought to mean for overall rental supply:

By 2028, 5.2mn homes rated F and G, or 17 per cent of total housing stock, will become ineligible for rental. By 2034, all E properties will also be excluded, amounting to about 40 per cent of homes.

This raises an interesting question: Is it more important to have energy-efficient homes or to have greater overall supply? Now obviously the goal and ideal scenario is both; lots of affordable homes that are also energy efficient. And presumably, one of the objectives of this rental ban is to stick/carrot owners into investing in energy measures. But it's not exactly obvious as to how many owners will be able to renovate their homes in time, and how many homes will become ineligible for rent. This will be an interesting policy to watch as it plays out.