Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 413

Maybe it's my design background or maybe it's the extreme discomfort in my legs, but usually when I'm on a plane I can't help but think about redesigning the cabin interior. Of course, there are only so many options in economy when your femur doesn't fit between the seats. However, in business class, where airlines actually make their money, the options are endless.

Below is a redesign that Lufthansa just launched this spring. Co-created with Pearson Lloyd , the concept is based on three distinct travel experiences: calm, focus, and share. The idea here is that maybe you just want to sleep (calm). Maybe you just want to work (focus). Or maybe you want to work and/or hang out with someone beside you (share). And depending on what you're looking for, your seat should reflect that.

The result is 7 different seat types that are bookable depending on what " job you're looking to hire it for ."

It is about consumer choice instead of one size fits all. But I'm curious:

• Were they able to maintain the same number of overall seats in business class, or are they betting on higher revenue per passenger because the seats are now better?

• How does booking work? What happens if I really want "calm," but the only available seat is "share"? And then what happens if my "share" neighbor is really talkative?

• Has anyone looked at multi-seat arrangements in economy? Or is it a non-starter because you really need to squeeze femurs in order to make the math work?

Lufthansa, if you're reading this and you'd like me to do a thorough review of your new Allegris Business Class seating, I would be happy to accept a flight to Paris sometime this summer. Until then, you can all find more information about this new seating layout and the design process, here .

Images: Pearson Lloyd

Tech analyst Benedict Evans -- who has 175,000 subscribers to his weekly newsletter -- has just published his big annual presentation about "what matters in tech?" This year's is called "The New Gatekeepers." And as is normally the case, he explores a number of macro trends that I think will interest many of you, even if you aren't in or interested in the tech industry. To check it out, click here .

Last week I wrote about Toronto's plan to make fourplexes as-of-right across the city , but also why this form of missing middle housing shouldn't have a maximum floor space index.

Today, let's look at the numbers in a bit more detail.

If you look at a zoning map of Toronto , you'll see that many neighborhoods across the city have a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 0.6. What this means is that if you have a piece of land like this:

• Lot width: 20'

• Lot depth: 115'

• Site area: 2,300 sf

Your total allowable gross floor area would be 1,380 square feet (0.6 x 2,300 sf).

If you build a laneway suite in this city, that won't count towards your total allowable GFA (otherwise they'd be very challenging/impossible to build). But if you want to build something like a triplex or a fourplex, it counts.

The one important caveat is that if you're building a residential building -- that isn't an apartment building with 5 or more homes -- you can deduct the floor area of the basement:

This, of course, helps the situation. But it doesn't solve all of our problems.

If you assume that the basement can be one home, that still only leaves 1,380 square feet for the other three, technically permissible, homes. This equals: 3 homes x 460 square feet.

Another option would be 2 homes x 690 square feet. But still, we're not exactly making it easy to deliver more "family-sized homes" in the city.

And herein lies one of the problems (plural, because there are others). We can say that fourplexes are allowed across the city, but it may not actually be technically feasible or practical to build them.

Note: I am not a planner. If you are, leave a comment below.