[LuckyS]

Taken from a blog post from a few days ago - what are your thoughts on reducing or just limiting the rate from which an amenity loses its usefulness? (I imagine every building in the database has an accompanied 'amenity' floor but it seems they're rarely talked about).

What do we do when these spaces are no longer useful? Do they stop functioning as amenities? Should we label them useless space? Or maybe not useful…yet? Or pre-useful? I’m asking because that was what the amenity became for a number of months during the pandemic and likely how the amenity will operate as we try to wiggle our way back into spaces that are ‘useful’. — — a huge question now is whether or not these spaces can be adjusted for new protocols — in instances where they can’t they default back to useless and inaccessible. This is not strictly a pandemic issue, and I don’t mean to place this in the context of what the last year has been but these ideas are really a product of what we found pre-pandemic — it was only 6 months or so in that these ideas were gradually amplified and enhanced (and I think in a good way). There aren’t many opportunities to make some (or any) significant change in the way we output ‘usefulness’ which I’d say is most — if not all — products of architecture. The question of access, shared spaces, and use are not strictly a condo concern (it relates to public/private recreation, roof tops, terraces, etc.) — more than anything — it only seems condo specific because at this moment condo developments are produced out of inconsistencies between finding a place to live (within the core or periphery of cities) and the rate to construct ‘affordable market rentals/condo units’.

This is not a good thing — within the context of amenities, the issue of quicker constructibility output becomes lower opportunities for unambiguous ‘useful’ space, where it is easier to opt for the generic yet marketable pool because it’s ‘common’ — common however is not proof or a reflection of demographic needs — and that is kind of the big issue when mixing traditional programmatic ‘standards’ with alternative social economic groups (purpose built condos are not a model to base affordable housing in that I don’t see leisure as a priority for residents seeking higher paid work). And the result is both a loss on the end of the developer who has to pay the upfront cost and maintenance fees after construction has finished — but more importantly, the resident who may not find a gym useful because most of their day is spent handling deliveries on their bike (a workout in and of itself) — perhaps a rec room or mech. Shop to fix bikes or a car is more appropriate?. The question here is whether or not there is a way to propose specified and co-optable usefulness — an amenity that is not co-optable can’t also (always) be useful (as we’ve seen over the past year).

How do we co-opt amenities? — Oddly enough it starts with privacy.

As a stab at some solution there is a three stage thought outlined below, it piggybacks off of our current need (within condos and not within condos) to log the interactivities of individuals entering and leaving shared spaces (as a solution to limiting the number of viral outbreaks) — this poses privacy risks and a challenge for a managers keeping track of sensitive information.

(and is it a tech or a spatial/architectural problem?)

 

[Undead]

lol what a word salad. Apart from space, clear and simple writing is obviously at a premium these days. Personally, I always wanted less amenity space because I would prefer to have a lower maintenance fee. Many amenities are fluff in my opinion. As long as my building is clean and in a state of good repair, I couldn't care less about having a dog spa, or conference room, or co-working space, or party room, or massage parlour

 

[LuckyS]

lol what a word salad. Apart from space, clear and simple writing is obviously at a premium these days. Personally, I always wanted less amenity space because I would prefer to have a lower maintenance fee. Many amenities are fluff in my opinion. As long as my building is clean and in a state of good repair, I couldn't care less about having a dog spa, or conference room, or co-working space, or party room, or massage parlour

will send out a draft your way before the next post. - but no, that's interesting I mean the dog spa seems like the obvious next step after a dedicated dog relief area - definitely wonder what we'll see next...prob doggy daycare?...but yeah this is kind of what I'm wondering with usefulness - do I need to get a dog now to feel like I'm getting my moneys worth just to live somewhere?

 

[Undead]

Haha, sorry for the snark if it was your post.

 

[Northern Light]

So...........like @Undead I'm not 100% clear on your question/thesis.

I get that you like the idea of flexible/re-purposable space; but I'm a bit fuzzy on the rest.

****

I'll put out a few things for clarity for any discussion.

The City imposes a minimum amount of indoor/outdoor amenity area; but does not generally specify what that entails.
The Dog-relief area does constitute a recent exception to that. But generally the City does not spell out to a developer that they must have a pool or a gym or spa etc etc.
The developer must create 'x' square feet of space, how that is structure is largely up to them. The City does not impose maximums, except in the form of overall
density/built area/lot coverage of the development.

****

In respect of 'dog relief' areas; the City is not seeking to create an amenity for residents, so much as avoid the problem of dog excrement on sidewalks, or people complaining about lack of park nearby where the dog could go. (and you're still supposed to pick up after it).

Party Rooms are often encouraged as a way to mitigate noise complaints, when a tenant/condo owner has a noisy party; ie. lets get them to a book a room that's got special sound proofing to avoid calls to by-law and police.

The thought of just requiring better noise-proofing insulation between all units never seemed to occur to anyone......

****

My feeling overall is that most amenity requirements, as currently structured do tend to result in spaces which will either decay/be closed, or be a money pit for residents in the future, while driving up costs in rent/purchase price in the present.
Some of that may be unavoidable unless you prohibit amenities, which would be a completely different sort of interventionism.
I'm inclined to let the market dictate, and give people a range of options that work for them.

But, if we are going to go away from pools and meeting rooms in buildings, we do require more community recreations centres, larger centres, with better hours.

If we are going to go away from party rooms, we do need better noise proofing.

If we are going to go away from guest suites we do need larger unit sizes.

Its all a series of trades; some of which, I think, are best left to the market to dictate; others by necessity must be addressed through City Planning policies and/or building codes.

 

[junctionist]

If housing affordability is an issue, which it is, one way that the government can help is by reducing amenity requirements and minimum parking requirements. Not only do the initial costs of construction decline, but so do the yearly maintenance fees and reserves. However, the city then has to provide the amenities itself.

I'd argue that it's better to have people from different buildings in non-pandemic times going to public buildings to swim in a pool, work out, borrow books, etc. It promotes social cohesion rather than the silo effect of each building having its own amenities and fewer or no amenities in the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

[LuckyS]

So...........like @Undead I'm not 100% clear on your question/thesis.

I get that you like the idea of flexible/re-purposable space; but I'm a bit fuzzy on the rest.

****

I'll put out a few things for clarity for any discussion.

The City imposes a minimum amount of indoor/outdoor amenity area; but does not generally specify what that entails.
The Dog-relief area does constitute a recent exception to that. But generally the City does not spell out to a developer that they must have a pool or a gym or spa etc etc.
The developer must create 'x' square feet of space, how that is structure is largely up to them. The City does not impose maximums, except in the form of overall
density/built area/lot coverage of the development.

****

In respect of 'dog relief' areas; the City is not seeking to create an amenity for residents, so much as avoid the problem of dog excrement on sidewalks, or people complaining about lack of park nearby where the dog could go. (and you're still supposed to pick up after it).

Party Rooms are often encouraged as a way to mitigate noise complaints, when a tenant/condo owner has a noisy party; ie. lets get them to a book a room that's got special sound proofing to avoid calls to by-law and police.

The thought of just requiring better noise-proofing insulation between all units never seemed to occur to anyone......

****

My feeling overall is that most amenity requirements, as currently structured do tend to result in spaces which will either decay/be closed, or be a money pit for residents in the future, while driving up costs in rent/purchase price in the present.
Some of that may be unavoidable unless you prohibit amenities, which would be a completely different sort of interventionism.
I'm inclined to let the market dictate, and give people a range of options that work for them.

But, if we are going to go away from pools and meeting rooms in buildings, we do require more community recreations centres, larger centres, with better hours.

If we are going to go away from party rooms, we do need better noise proofing.

If we are going to go away from guest suites we do need larger unit sizes.

Its all a series of trades; some of which, I think, are best left to the market to dictate; others by necessity must be addressed through City Planning policies and/or building codes.

Thanks @Northern Light

I'll go through the list and kind of address - or diverge on some of the themes you're bringing up.

***

Thesis:
This is kind of the issue (and I'm starting to think a fault of the quote I took - there's way more context in the original link) - I don't see this as a thesis and would say this is actually the part that happens after a thesis - where you begin inviting others (if they're interested) and do something to see whether or not this thing actually works/solve problems? (less as an idea more as a usable tool - at least that's the frame that the post is written in).


***

as a far as a discussion - and your points:

The dog relief is a strange precedent -

I haven't given much thought to how the city may influence the idea of co-opted amenity space -- it doesn't necessarily become an issue for the city if a developer chooses to do nothing about a space that becomes less useful to residents. I imagine this would only become an issue in the case of neglected maintenance? where they might refuse or (worse case) continue to allow access into a space that could be dangerous but not have the budget to fix....

I have some thought on policy with respects to the idea of dedicated space to let your dog relieve themselves. This is sensible in specific contexts (not necessarily everywhere - or even assuming a majority of residents own a dog and of those majority most of them need that level of convenience). The precedent tho is interesting because it does mean if you don't own a dog why would go there? (which does some strange things in terms of access). In either case - I think my point is whether or not this principle would make sense if applied to economic conveniences? - If we're talking about Affordable housing, does dedicated space to set up shop/advertise/sell/resale (like a garage sale? minus the garage) become a resource for residents who have to deal with income? - and is that a policy or up to the developer?, just the idea of allocated space to market or a market place for residents (public/private) on a dedicated day of the week seems inaccessible to those who need the benefit of additional income streams that's also close to home.

I'm weary though to begin approaching the issue or to even think that a solution would start from policy or the city - I think in the long run it may be a really good asset for residents if it starts from their influence/needs.

***

Thats exactly what I'm pointing out - which I think could be for the market to sort out - or for residents to determine. The alternative would not be prohibiting or doing away with shared spaces - I think the cities requirement of ambiguous space (with a distinct square footage) is the perfect constraint. However the decay, usefulness and costs for residents over time (which drives up rent costs etc.) shouldn't try to be solved with architectural/policy intervention.

maybe this is the thesis - but the intervention is definitely a question of who's say is it? - is it the developer? the city? or the residents? (or all three?) and -- if it's the residents, then what tools are going to enable them to do that?


- we know a developer will have a say in determining the layout and type of amenity
- the city will impose the minimums they will require (plus a space for dog relief).
- What is never clear tho is what can the resident do to influence the use beyond deciding whether they want to use the space or not? (which usually happens because they got bored and decided to get a gym membership or they unfortunately don't own a dog)

***


The trade offs I think is a good point - as a resident tho you're options and what you are allowed to trade with seem to be your choice to use or not use the spaces you are partially also paying for. Those don't seem to be the best bargaining chips - but I do see your point how these alterations to what we're used to as amenities do become a balancing act - that I think if left to the market to decide makes it harder for residents to use their influence (and easier for developers to choose a similar or common amenity that becomes a 'standard').

**

But all that said - not a thesis - I'm really approaching this as a 'can this be solved?' and whether or not there's interest to do so through discussions or others that want to actually try? (it's definitely a resident problem and I unfortunately moved out of my condo a few years ago - they did not have a doggy relief area) :/

 

[LuckyS]

If housing affordability is an issue, which it is, one way that the government can help is by reducing amenity requirements and minimum parking requirements. Not only do the initial costs of construction decline, but so do the yearly maintenance fees and reserves. However, the city then has to provide the amenities itself.

I'd argue that it's better to have people from different buildings in non-pandemic times going to public buildings to swim in a pool, work out, borrow books, etc. It promotes social cohesion rather than the silo effect of each building having its own amenities and fewer or no amenities in the surrounding neighbourhood.

I think some of what I mentioned in the previous comments talks about you're saying but I will also add this -

The city would create two issues in trying to solve one - a need to find indoor space for recreation (which doesn't seem to exist or if could exists would be in competition with community centres...which is kind of what it seems like you're describing) - and the guarantee that over time the amenities wouldn't decay or close. (not to mention the question of who pays? - would this be at the expense of neighbouring residential developments - or tax payers and who gets access? )

I do like the idea and completely agree that people from different buildings (post-pandemic) should be able to access each other's amenities - this is definitely a problem when amenities are located on rooftops or upper floors (which is done specifically to avoid the public from wandering in). There are definitely design considerations that go into preventing non-resident access which also means there are ways to enhance non-residential access. Unfortunately a lot existing developments are not planned this way and I don't see a sign solving this issue - I do think a system that is less formal but as equally secure as having a chat with a concierge who might then let you would also work. -- I think when it comes to non-residential access it's all about letting others who manage these spaces know you are there and for how long, which could be a conversation or a button you press on your phone?

does that make sense?

 

[DSC]

In general, the more amenities a building has the higher the monthly maintenance fees or rents will be. Some amenities are very expensive(a pool needs to be checked every 4-hours under Ontario regulations and, if it is not very heavily used, each use is VERY costly) Gyms need equipment and regular maintenance and a 24/7 concierge is VERY costly. Having a dog washing room is probably not very expensive while installing EV charging stations is expensive. You cannot just talk about 'amenities" - each is different 'value' and different cost. In a condo, if the building has 'always' had a Squash Court the Corporation must retain it unless owners vote to stop having one (a change in the services offered) and the vote needs 80% or 90% of owners to agree.

 

[LuckyS]

This seems relevant: New Toronto condo comes with a Tik-Tok Recording Studio