Listeners of this podcast know all too well about Toronto’s housing woes and affordability issues. We’ve discussed these issues numerous times with a number of guests before.
Jaegap Chung, co-founder with Sue Jean Chung of Studio JCI has been advocating for innovative solutions to the residential housing supply shortage that are buildable today.
His focus on creativity is inspiring and his architecture idiosyncratically unique.
Check out this episode to hear what more about his ideas and his solutions.
About the podcast: Single Serves is a podcast where we interview experts on single issues of interest to architects and designers. The thought-provoking ideas shared here are intended to inspire our listeners to become well-rounded entrepreneurs who are the leaders of their field.
Credits: ©2022 Produced by Révélateur Studio & edited by Chris Rodd
Transcript edited for clarity and brevity:
RVLTR:
Jaegap Chung founded Studio JCI with his partner, Sue Jean Chung in 2007, with the shared goal of creating timeless buildings that contribute to the social, economic and cultural fabric of cities. A Commitment to finding creative, practical, and affordable solutions to Toronto's urban planning problem led to the development of the "Multi-Tach", a long term, sustainable, multi-generational solution to the problem of Toronto's affordable housing crisis and its missing middle challenge. Today we're discussing yet another time Toronto's chronically undersupplied housing stock and we will discuss it over and over again until things change. I'm looking at you politicians.Jaegap, thank you very much for indulging in my city-building obsession. It's a real pleasure to welcome you to the show as a guest. And I hope we'll have a very productive conversation.
Jaegap Chung (JC):
Thanks, Arno. Happy to be here.
RVLTR:
Thank you very much. So tell us who you are and what you do, in your own words in three sentences or less.
JC:
I like to see myself as a problem solver. We don't just pick pretty materials for buildings, but we need to solve problems. When I went to school, the projects that garnered a lot of attention tended to be ones [with] beautiful pictures, beautiful renderings, and those are important, but I think equally important is to be able to problem solve, to bring not only designers, but [all] sorts of other disciplines together to be able to look at issues from a different vantage point and to say: "Okay, how can we improve [our designs]?" And those problem solving skills are becoming even more relevant and important, especially in this post-pandemic world. I think that was our impetus for starting this Multi-Tach initiative.
RVLTR:
So it's widely accepted now that the country and Toronto specifically has a housing problem, and I realize that it's a very complex problem that has a lot of ramifications, but what is it in your opinion? How would you summarize it briefly? And maybe you can start hinting at some of the solutions that we'll talk about later in the interview?
JC:
You're right. The issue is complex and there are many different layers. But I just want to show the way that the city of Toronto has had since its inception this "yellow belt", which takes up about 75% of the landmass of the GTA and of which 66% of the yellow belt has been designated as single detached home [zoning]. And to try to [build anything other than single family homes] you are fighting an uphill battle that's almost unwinnable. And so we, so invariably what the OP policies force developers to build only within that kind of intensification zones, the avenues and along the Yonge street corridor and the downtown area where all the housing needs have to be addressed along that corridor. So as a build form, as a city, you'll see so many high rises along that Yonge street corridor. And oftentimes what we get, [are things] like [where ] I live: a neighborhood where [you have] a 20 story high-rise. and then there's two storey single family homes right next to it. And then it becomes one story bungalows that are [15-minutes] walking distance from a subway and huge 50-foot lots. And so that is an easy thing for the planning policies to change and say, well, if you're within a certain distance from the subway station and you're living right along Yonge street, it makes sense for those homes to be multi-unit, multi-tenant and open up the zoning to be able to do that. But the reality is because the way that the OP policies have been written, they are considered sort of stable neighborhoods and stable neighborhoods, from a planning policy point of view, are like a no-go zone. You don't wanna touch it, and they've been preserved as a kind of economic gated communities, that prohibit somebody like a younger or immigrant to come and, and buy and live in those areas.
RVLTR:
That makes sense. And it speaks to what we were talking about just before the interview: that there is for a lot of people and - and this is broad generalization - a desire to keep things as they are, because there are the incumbents that got into the market when it was [economically] feasible. And now they're worried that their wealth is going to be wiped away by a condo being built at the end of their street, which we know as "NIMBYs". But what's your take on advocating for people that either can't afford at this point to live in those neighborhoods. And worse still, the people that are not yet living in the city, but there's like hundreds of thousands of people that are expected to move to the GTA in the next few decades, and these will need to find housing. What, and then you've talked a little bit about the multi-tach and some of your own solutions to that problem, but what do you think will happen if we don't do anything, and we don't work really hard to make that city livable for everyone?
JC:
So I think there's different ways to look at the problem. Oftentimes some municipalities think that the right way is to "ghettoize" and create, you [...] highrise communities, and we're gonna build it, you know, in the Junction area or Etobicoke or the Weston-Lawrence zone [Toronto neighbourhoods] [...]. And we're gonna designate these zones as, as being "high-intensity" areas and then try to meet and address all of your housing needs there and only there. It's basically creating areas where you're putting so much stress on a very limited [space], right? Because now instead of [housing] a thousand people per square kilometer now you've got 10,000 people/km2, and all of your services and water sewage, and all that capacity has to keep up to be able to house all those people. It's not only costing the taxpayers a lot of money, but it's sort of, ghettoizing that kind of zone and same thing with affordable housing, the federal government has announced some initial, new initiatives for affordable housing. We all know that that's important, but invariably, what ends up happening is then they kind of demarcate certain zones for affordable housing. They build High Rise affordable housing and then, that's where they house everybody. And it becomes another St. James town, or it becomes another Regent park where you end up ghettoizing neighborhoods. Our thinking is with the Multi-tach initiative is instead of concentrating development in one or two areas, why not just like evenly spread it out? So based on our research, if we looked at 1% adoption in the current available R, RA and RM zones [Yellow Belt], a 1% adoption of the Multi Tach, we're talking about 10,000 extra units. Okay. Which is equivalent to about 25 high rises
RVLTR:
For the whole city?
JC:
This is only in the R zone, which is only in the 30% of the yellow belt. Now, if we take that to 18%, that's equivalent to 350,000 units, again, not in one area, I'm talking about more of an equitable distribution, right? We're not talking about putting everybody in one area. No, we're just saying just evenly spreading it out, starting with the NTSA zone. Start with the subway lines. Start with the bus lines, start there. We're talking about very gentle densification. And we're talking about only about 18% adoption of a given residential block. So, the insertion is very gentle and very discreet. That's 350,000 units. Now, get this Arnaud, if we take that idea and you apply it to the entire RD zone. So now we're talking about the entire yellow belt, which goes up to Steeles ave., which is where I live. I live in an RD zone. Then we are talking about the possibility of 18% adoption - I'm not even talking about half, we're talking about 18% adoption - brings about 1.2 million family size 1000 square feet, residential, multi multiplex units. 1.2 million.
RVLTR:
What's the current deficit of units as of today in the city? I heard that number a while back, but I can't remember what it is. Do you know?
JC:
I'm not entirely sure, but we are facing about 40,000 to 50,000 a year deficit in terms of housing. And that's been accumulating. So the housing issue can be resolved without having to concentrate our development along Yonge street and the avenues corridors.
RVLTR:
And there are neighborhoods where this happened organically. I live in Roncesvalles.
JC:
Roncesvalles is organic.
RVLTR:
Most of the houses along Parkside dr., which is a busy street. Most of them are multi-unit residential. They've been converted over the years. The house I live in is that way. And then if you go into the side streets, it's all single family residential. And it's an extremely pleasant neighborhood to be in.
JC:
Right. Right.
RVLTR:
So there are precedents in the city of that already existing and not really being an issue. And we don't have issues with our neighbors, the one, the owners, the renters, they're all fine.
JC:
We did a lot of research. We went to Montreal, we looked at the, , the three-storey kind of units that exist in old Montreal. We looked at Boston, [where] they're called the Triple-Deckers, and the old historic part of Austin, they have like these buildings with balconies on each side. We explored London. London has something very similar. Brooklyn also has them, [All of these] are great examples of cities that we would never call them third world cities. They're great cities. They're beautiful places to be in. And it works. And you know what Arnaud, what I find pleasant about those cities is that they're very walkable. First of all, because they have more generous sidewalks. There's more people on the street, which makes them safer. And because there's more people in concentration, there's fewer cars. And you know, it just [makes] for a better community. People are happier. There's more access to sunlight. Don't get me wrong, I'm from Asia. I grew up in a high-rise city: Seoul. It's flooded with high rises.
RVLTR:
I've been to Seoul. It's quite impressive. Yeah.
JC:
And I'm not saying that there's not a place for High Rises. Certainly there is, but highrises, and mid-rises cannot be the only solution for housing in the city. It just cannot. And currently, on the supply side, over 85% of the new supply is in the form of high-rise and mid-rise condominiums. And, and that's not balanced.
RVLTR:
Well, you can't live in a city of high rises the way downtown [Toronto] is, because you can't make the whole city [like] downtown or it's gonna be completely soulless and not pleasant to be in. It works for certain areas, obviously. So you said in your introduction that you like to think of yourself as a problem solver, and I think it's fair to say that architects are increasingly used as mere service providers. Like: "We're gonna put plans together for you and be done with it." How do you think they could become more than just hired guns, and truly maximize the value offering? Because architects are very creative and, and they, they can come up with great solutions to complex problems. But how would you get out of that kind of habit that the industry and the culture has kind of pigeonholed the architects into?
JC:
I think that's a very good question. When I was in school, we were taught that as architects, we're leaders. Right. But the reality is we haven't been functioning in that role because our role was primarily [that] of a service provider doing the drawings and getting them approved with the city. But I believe there's a new generation of architects that are coming up that are thinking not just about providing a service, but really taking leadership and saying: "Okay, we're gonna solve this. We're gonna tackle this issue. In order to do that, I need to bring on an MBA, a finance guy. I need to bring on a seasoned builder. I need to bring on a person to be able to address these challenges from a new vantage point. I think it starts with the [architecture education] because what kind of architects are we creating in our schools? And if we can, for example, teach our young graduates how to think outside the box and really start tackling [issues]. So instead of doing a thesis project about a beautiful art gallery or a beautiful community center. Those are beautiful buildings and projects, community centers are fine, but community centers are financed by the municipality and paid for by the government. They're not intrinsically the center of commerce, so to speak. And I think we need to think very carefully about who are the city builders today? The city builders are the developers, right? And the developers have very strong and deep ties to money. And they're the ones influencing the way that the cities get built and formed. Many of them are very conscientious developers and they're fantastic at what they do as a provider of phenomenal service to the community and to, and to the city. Many of them do, but many of them are only motivated by the almighty dollar. And so you get a kind of a varied group. But the reason why they're at the table calling the shots is because they have control over those resources. And they're calling the shots.
RVLTR:
I think it's also very easy to shit on developers, because some of them are bad, like any profession, but the reality is they're also dealing with a lot of forces that are beyond their control.
JC:
Absolutely.
RVLTR:
The zoning building code, all those regulations they have to contend with.
JC:
Absolutely.
RVLTR:
It's not an easy job.
JC:
It's high-risk. It's very, very difficult and it's challenging. It requires you to know a lot. So we've been thankful, we're partnering up with some phenomenal developers that think outside the box and we're able to kind of service them in a way that enables us to see things a little bit more differently. But it's a challenge and I think our success as a firm has been attributed to our ability to kind of think outside the box to meet some of their needs in a more creative way.
RVLTR:
And I think your portfolio speaks to that for sure. So you've come up with a few solutions. We talked briefly about Multi-Tach and there's also that initiative called Clip Homes to maybe [solve] some of those problems we've been discussing. Can you tell us a little more about them?
JC:
So the Multi-Tach initiative is one of advocacy. We've been working with the EHON group there, which EHON stands for Expended Housing Options for Neighborhoods. It's an initiative that the city of Toronto has undertaken and under the EHON initiative, things like the garden suite and the laneway bylaws were passed. It was adopted by council and passed, [but it's] unfortunately currently under appeal. They are also now in the process of trying to get this thing called a multiplex initiative. And that's in the dialogue and hopefully that will come to council hopefully sometime this year, and we're actively involved.
RVLTR:
So what is that initiative?
JC:
The multiplex initiative is really a direct result of our Multi-Tach - the triplex and the fourplex model - we've been working with the Ryerson city Institute in getting that messaging out and the city's really catching onto that and they're really seeing a benefit. So that initiative is being headed by two planners in the city, Philip Parker and Melanie Melnyk and they're fantastic. They're really forward thinking, planners that are really listening and they want to instigate change. So I really want to thank them for that. So that's on the advocacy side and on the initiative side, Clip Homes is a company that we formed with a couple of other partners. CLIP actually stands for "City Living Is Possible". And its mandate is to implement the initiative, so to speak. If Multi-Tach is about asking: "What can we do and how do we get that messaging out to the public?" Clip is about: "Okay, now, how do we take that, create a business case around it? How do we build with efficiency? How do we make that work?" So, in order to make that work, it's not just about being an architect, planner or builder, it's about being able to bring all that together with the expertise and providing a kind of a financial option and a solution for the homeowner.
RVLTR:
Is it a prefab based solution?
JC:
Our focus right now is on the garden suites. Start small. We're very much focused on developing the garden suite model, but that's the product, and using panelization and also looking at ways to streamline construction. So we've been looking at various different models. We've got a workshop and we're building a pilot, we're hoping to build something by the summer, an actual one to one scale pilot.
RVLTR:
That's great.
JC:
We're looking at a cool design, but equally we're very interested in the kind of process and how we automate, how we streamline the whole construction process? So that 80 to 85% of the work is done in a shop and only 15% of the work is actually done on site. And so what that does, the ultimate yield is that we can build the garden suite for under a hundred thousand dollars for a 300-350 square foot unit,
RVLTR:
Right. Turn-key?
JC:
Turn-key. So it'll be $100K or $600/month, like a car lease. And one week from start to finish for the complete construction.
RVLTR:
So you prefabricate all in a plant and one week on site and it's done?
JC:
One week on site, that's the goal. Now we're not gonna do volumetric prefab. Volumetric prefab is complicated because you're limited to the streets that you have to drive through. So this is gonna be more of, let's say, an alternative to the panelization, but it's a smart panelization because it's using foldable technology and things like that
RVLTR:
RVLTR: But if it's one week on site, if you built it traditionally it would be what, at least a year, right?
JC:
If it's a garden suite it will probably take about four to five months.
RVLTR:
Yeah. So you, you're cutting it by more than 10 times. That's crazy.
JC:
And also there's not gonna be hammering and drilling and loud construction noise on site. The whole goal is to try to mitigate. And so that the work done on site is just more like securing fastening and fitting versus all the noise that construction makes. Nobody wants all this noise in your neighborhood.
RVLTR:
So you, you briefly touched on the financing aspect. Is your plan to offer financing? So people who may not have a hundred thousand lying around can still get it built and then say, rent that unit for a thousand bucks. And so they pay you $600, then earn an extra $400 kinda thing?
JC:
Correct. We're bringing on a financing partner to help us do that.
RVLTR:
That's amazing. So there has been for decades a desire, at least on the architect's side, to bring about more rationalization and industrialization to the building process. And it's by and large not taken, there's been some prefabrication endeavors out there, but they've never blown up throughout the entire industry. Why do you think that is? And what, what were the main roadblocks? And one of the biggest examples is Katerra that went bankrupt last year. So how does one overcome that problem? Because it seems like everyone who's tried has had incredible challenges with that.
JC:
That's a very good question, Arnaud And I've been researching a little bit about Katerra and why they failed. And Katera, I think first, was headed by a software CEO, who didn't have a thorough understanding of the complexity of the construction processes and in the industry. And I think they are just at a high-level thought: "Okay, if we cut out the middleman, then we're gonna save time and save money." So the whole idea was you inboard the engineer you inboard the architect you don't have to wait for the windows supplier. "We're gonna create a window company, we're gonna make our own windows. HVAC. We're gonna make our own HVAC. We're gonna make our own plumbing fixtures." So they just started too much too fast and they're burning through massive amounts of cash very quickly. And I think that was a challenge. Instead, I think what we're seeing now is companies like Cover, in the US where they're just focusing on ADUs: accessible dwelling units.
RVLTR:
Which is, our garden suites and laneway homes.
JC:
Exactly garden suites and laneway homes. And you just start small and you don't overstretch yourself and you just focus and develop at that small scale. You refine that model, you perfect it. Then you could take it to the next level. But, Katerra never did that. They just under-bidding, on all their projects, and then started losing money. They didn't perfect the process, and it was a nightmare.
RVLTR:
And so the other side of that coin is why wouldn't large developers - not to pick on them - Let's say like Mattamy Homes who build thousands and thousands of houses every year, not be interested or even implement that model of, panelized prefab 85% done in a plant. And then one week on site and done, because you'd think if that works for you at a small scale, they would save a ton of money doing that and still provide valuable service, right?
JC:
So that's a very good question. And to me, it's like the blockbuster model. Why didn't blockbuster come up with Netflix? Because that was the obvious choice. They were the Goliath and Netflix was David, right? They were much smaller. I believe Mattamy Homes did try to do the panelization, but it failed miserably. And I think the problem from gathering, and from the study that I've done, is they wanted to use conventional methods, but just build it at the factory. I think the difference with clip is that it's not conventional. We have to really think outside the box and look at materials. Like, why would you have drywall? Especially if you've got drywall sitting out in the rain, then that's gonna create mold. But is drywall the only option for the interior of a house? No. If you use, for example, CLT [cross-laminated timber]. CLT can sit outside now, there are challenges with using CLT we also ran into, based on our research that CLT, the wood itself, can still expand and contract. So conceptually this idea of the CLT fitting together like Lego blocks in theory works really well. But in practice, there are also some challenges because you have to make site modifications. When you have to make site modifications. That's when things become very expensive, yeah. And complicated. And the timing gets drawn out. There is a product called magnesium oxide panel, which is a product that's very readily available in China, but Canada's also becoming a big distributor of that because we're mining magnesium oxide, magnesium oxide is very healthy. You could in fact eat it, like those magnesium tablets that you take for health. So it's very environmentally sustainable. It's healthy for you.
RVLTR:
Is it similar to your drywall panel?
JC:
Like, it's very similar, but it feels a little bit more like stone, it's a little bit more brittle. There is a kind of fiber fiberglass mesh that makes it a little bit more durable, but that can be exposed to the elements, no issues. And it's got a phenomenal fire rating, for example. And if you designed it right, so that you don't have to tape the joints, mud and sand it again, mud it again, sand it again, mud it again. And you don't even have to paint it.
RVLTR:
Painting alone after drywalling is a huge amount of work.
JC:
A huge amount of work. But you think about magnesium oxide and it just comes in panels, that's it. You don't even have to paint them, they look beautiful in and of themselves. Leave it. You just have to put a baseboard and put your electrical and mechanical chases.
RVLTR:
And then you can work with the joints to look intentional.
JC:
I'm just showing as, as one example, we don't have to use magnesium panels. You can use other panels. There's MDF and plywood panels. So if you want the wood look, certainly you can achieve that, but we have to approach things in its inception differently, fundamentally different from the way that we have been approaching it.
RVLTR:
So you're saying, to make a prefab successful, you really have to step away from everything you know, basically. And think about the problems differently. That's very interesting. So to go back to your two initiatives: CLIP Homes and Multi-Tach, what has the response been to that? Both on the political side and also maybe by the general public or the industry?
JC:
So, you know, I currently employ about 32 architects and out of 32, I would say probably almost 25 of them are millennials and gen Zs. They're young. And I ask them all the time at the office: "Hey, listen, you know, you guys are renting right now, would you buy one of these?" And the response has always been incredibly resounding. Yes. I would love to live in one. So first I needed to make sure that there's a market for it. And then people would want to live in these kinds of places. So from the demand side we are pretty confident that there's a big demand. I think your question was also from the political and from the city staff side, we're seeing huge interests as well from city staff.
RVLTR:
Yeah.
JC:
From some counselors, depending you get some hot and, you know, warm and, and lukewarm [responses] depending on where you are.
RVLTR:
Well, the good news is that the elections are coming up. So if your counselor is not supporting those initiatives, time to vote them out.
JC:
However, there are some residents in the neighborhood, depending on where you are, that are strongly opposed to this. And I could see this, the fact that the garden suites got appealed and now people can't do them anymore. It's gonna be an uphill battle. It's not gonna be easy. I can tell you that people don't like change.
RVLTR:
Especially in Canada.
JC:
Especially the incumbents, already in, the homeowners that are all sitting on a very nice retirement nest egg, living in the neighborhood, they don't want change.
RVLTR:
I mean, they're acting rationally, but what drives me nuts is those people, again - to generalize broadly- let's say they tend to be a little more liberal and they'll say: "Oh, we want all those nice things for all the poor people and the future immigrants." But their actions say the exact opposite. And there's a huge amount of cognitive dissonance for those people who say they want to support the society and the culture as a whole, but when it comes to their own interest, it comes first. And frankly, first of all, there's no evidence that densifying the city is gonna make their property lose any value. If anything, it's probably gonna gain value. But also it's very selfish because they're the ones who were lucky enough to buy say 15 years ago or even earlier, when it was still cheap, but it's no longer the case. I think now you have to have a household income of $180,000 a year to be able to afford a home, say a detached home or a townhome. And I think it's $130K to afford a basic condo. It's insane.
JC:
Yeah. It's crazy.
RVLTR:
It's really insane. So if you're a lawyer, maybe you can afford it. But if you're a blue collar worker, even if you make good money, you probably don't make that much. So it's quite insane. So can you tell us a little bit about your recent ULI workshop and how effective it was to bring the city builders, developers, and architects and planners together to address some of those issues?
JC:
I went in a little bit jaded and skeptical, but to my surprise, I thought it was very, very good. And I think it was really good to get different perspectives. First of all, again this idea that I brought up - and I mentioned at the beginning - the problems that we face today are multifaceted. It can't be solved by one party or one discipline. It's gotta be multidisciplinary. We need input from all sides. And I think the city recognized that, and it was really great because the panel was composed of a very diverse range of people from architects to planners, to builders, developers, and marketing [people] and sales people. It was really well composed. I really appreciated it. Having said that they're gonna take those recommendations.They're gonna have to take it to council and I hope council will adopt, but even if they did adopt, our democracy is very fragile that it can be kiboshed by different resident groups and neighborhood associations. So even though it makes sense to 75 to 80% of the people out there, our democracy is set up in such a way so that 20% can technically kibosh the interest of 70% of the people. Now I wanted to bring up this point because my "why" for doing this is, if you really think about housing, like a basic human need, shelter. Like clothing and food, right? It's a basic human need. So if you approach housing as a basic human need, not as a want or not as a kind of a luxury item, but think about it as like wearing clothes. Everybody needs clothes, so I think we're gonna approach the problem differently. But until there's that sense that we all deserve basic housing, like it's a human rights issue, unless we actually think about it that way, change is gonna be very, very difficult.
RVLTR:
And do you think the solution should come from the government or from the market?
JC:
I think it needs to come from both. I think there needs to be a recognition from the government that the policies they have put in place are not working. What would be a shame is for the government to just throw gobs and gobs of money to builders to build like one type of housing that we see everywhere in Toronto. Which tends to be the model for our affordable housing: mid-rise or lower rise scale. You can't live in the city. So now we're gonna put you in the middle of "Timbuktu" . Let's say Midland I mean, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being in Midland.
RVLTR:
If you work in the city, the commute becomes horrendous.
JC:
Where are people who serve you? The bartenders, the dry cleaners, the waitresses and the people who work at Starbucks and Tim Hortons and, and McDonald's? Where are they living? Do they live in basement apartments with no light in their unit? What about them? I think that's what my concern with these affordable housing projects is you're, ghettoizing them in certain areas. And I think we have to be very, very careful Because to be honest, I'm one of the privileged, we're both living in a great city. We're probably at the top 1% of the world in terms of income. But I don't want to be thought of as a guy who lives in the Thorncliffe neighborhood or St. Jamestown, because that's not where I want to be. I wanna be in the upper beaches, or I wanna be in Leslieville. Maybe not in a 3000 square foot detached home, I'm happy with an 800 or 900 square feet, three bedroom apartment. But to me, being in a community provides more dignity than being allocated to an affordable housing project.
RVLTR:
That's what I was gonna say. It's about dignity, right? You might be a "lowly" Starbucks barista, but dignity is as important to you as it is to the wealthy person.
JC:
Absolutely.
RVLTR:
And that's what makes great societies when everybody can live with dignity, even if they have different means.
JC:
Absolutely. For my talk, we researched four cities that are more affordable than Toronto. And one city that stands out is Houston. They have no zoning bylaw. The average home is $250,000 CAD. I don't even think you could build affordable housing for $250,000 in Toronto right now. And so it goes to show you that, again, I'm not saying Houston is a model of a phenomenal city. I'm not saying that at all. However they have addressed their housing issues. Because they made it accessible.
RVLTR:
So I have a little anecdote to speak to that. I have a friend who just bought a huge apartment in Chicago, not downtown a little bit outside of the city center. And I was shocked when she told me how much she paid for it, because it was less than the cost of a studio condo. And it's like a 2,000 or 2,500 square feet unit in a beautiful old apartment building. I'm like: "That's amazing". So of course, Chicago doesn't have the pressure that Toronto has because it's a city that's been losing residents, but there's, there's cities that are very similar in many ways, they're in similar climates, they're economically very similar and there's a huge difference. And those are things we need to look at. I was shocked a few years ago to learn that Tokyo, which is the biggest city in the world by any measure, has managed to keep its affordability under control because they've allowed early on a lot of different options, for people to build their homes, they have those tiny, really tall and skinny two, three-storey houses that might have one or two units in them. They have lots of tall apartment buildings. They have a bit of everything. But for the largest city in the world, which is arguably, one of the most powerful economically as well, it's impressively affordable. So it is possible. It doesn't have to be New York, London, or Paris.
JC:
Exactly. It is possible. It becomes more important as, as we are bringing more immigrants, as we as a city, want to grow and we want to attract talent. You know, affordability becomes a big problem. We're not gonna be able, as a global city, to attract the right talent, the right people.
RVLTR:
You know, you know, you run the risk of becoming another San Francisco where you only have tech workers that can afford it, but there's no one else who can afford it. And everybody leaves.
JC:
Exactly.
RVLTR:
So that's not a good thing. I think that's all the questions I had for you today, but do you have any last thoughts you wanna share with the audience? Anything you want to add that you think is important to put out there?
JC:
I was originally born and raised in South Korea. I grew up in South India and Bangladesh and I went to school in the US for a little bit. I did a lot of odd jobs here and there and lived in different parts of the US. Toronto is a great city. I fell in love with the city 23 years ago, because it was a city of diversity. They embrace diversity.
RVLTR:
It has a lot to offer.
JC:
It has a lot to offer and I think that the city I love, I would hate for it to become a city that nobody can afford to live in. And I think it's really important that policy makers and counselors and politicians and people recognize that. We're not asking for much, we're just asking to open the zoning restrictions a little bit.
And we're not asking for billions of dollars, if you open it up a little bit, I think the market will dictate the solutions, but you have to open it up so the market can do its job.
RVLTR:
I think every citizen has a duty to be interested in those issues and vote. I became Canadian a few months ago and I decided to stop being cynical about politics. Because that's the easy solution, right? "This politician is an asshole. This one thinks about himself only." But the reality is that as a voter, you have the ability to change. And I know it may seem like a vote won't make a difference, but enough votes will make a difference. And as I mentioned briefly earlier, the municipal elections are coming up in the fall. It's time to, to use that power that we all have at least as Canadians.And we should vote and make sure to you vote for the right or for the person who supports what you're interested in.
JC:
Absolutely.
RVLTR:
Well, I wanna thank you very much for your time. This was a very interesting conversation and hopefully the first of many.
JC:
Thank you, Arnaud.