urban adaptation

urban adaption THE MICRO UNIT CONCEPT

ALEX HRYNKIEWICZ | 20330185 | PLAN 450 | MARKUS MOOS | APRIL 2013

Urban Adaptation: The Mirco-Unit Concept 01

1.0 introduction

2.0 general cotext

3.0 affordability in toronto

4.0 affordability in vancouver

5.0 necessity

6.0 framework

7.0 design

8.0 visuals

9.0 conclusion

10.0 works cited

1.0 introduction

02 Alex Hrynkiewicz | 20330185 | PLAN 450

Lewis Mumford illustrated the city as the first true utopia

with regard to its ability in physically manifesting human society

(Mumford, 1965). As such when the social, economic and

environmental foundations of human society shift and change

so does the urban fabric that embodies it. Current Canadian

metropolitans are dominated by a framework for dense

communities in which proximity to amenities and the workplace

facilitates walk ability, social interaction and diversity (Quastrel et

al, 2012). These structural shifts are juxtaposed by major social

and economic deficiencies within downtown neighborhoods that

cause severe inequalities and offer major barriers to entry for

young professionals, students, and creative class employees all of

which tend to construct single earner households. This discourse

addresses the question of whether the provision of what have

been termed as micro-apartments could adequately offer low-cost

adaptive housing solutions to reduce barriers to entry for single

earner households and low-income individuals. The analysis will

include a review of affordability in Canadian metropolitans as well

as examples of implementation within a North American context.

Finally, the design of a micro-apartment unit will illustrate a physical

implementation in an appropriate context. The changing form of

metropolitan Canada necessitates remedies for the continued


gentrification and amplifying inequalities that currently characterize

the urban fabric in order to achieve not only environmental

sustainability but also economic and social sustainability.

Figure 1.1 - Micro Lofts by 5468796 Architects in Winnipeg

Figure 1.2 - Micro Lofts by Reliance Properties in Vancouver

Figure 1.3 - Micro Loft by Jakub Szczesny in Warsaw, Poland

Source: Reliance Properties (2012).

Source: 5468796 (2013).

Source: Jakub Szczesny (2010).

As a result of growing populations, increasing vehicular

miles travelled (VMT), sprawling development, fractured social

fabrics and environmental degradation planning has professed

the concept of sustainability-as-density in which a dense urban

fabric, integrated with alternative transit modes, prevents outward

growth and promotes urban livelihood (Quastrel et al, 2012).

Although these policies promote complete communities with

sustainable infrastructure, walkable amenities, mixed uses and

high urban design standards they inherently gentrify central city

neighborhoods as redevelopments are marketed toward urban

elites (2012). Meanwhile, the designation of greenbelts around the

urban boundary restrict physical outward growth concentrating

expansion in densification projects which place a premium on

inner-city land (Lafluer, 2011). Despite concrete evidence that

urban containment strategies promote increased density the

constricted land supply increases land values and housing costs

(Dawkins & Nelson, 2002). Although these zoning regulations

and planning policies can artificially increase land values and

indirectly impact housing costs, in the absence of these policies,

affordability is largely a function of income (CMHC, 2005). As

a result, to understand housing affordability a Shelter Cost-to-

Income Ratio (STIR) indicator is used to understand the ability for


2.0 general context


households to afford shelter (CMHC, 2008). The benchmark ratio

of 30 per cent establishes the limit in defining affordable housing

and is analyzed on the basis of choice versus necessity based on

economic means (2008). The Canadian Mortgage and Housing

Corporation, in 2005, outlined a trend of housing affordability in

which the median annual STIR among renters was 25.3 per cent

while proportions of individuals living above the 30 per cent ratio

continued to rise (CMHC, 2005). The report illustrates renters as

the highest risk category, to be above affordability thresholds,

while the metropolitan behemoths of Toronto and Vancouver, where

density is most readily implemented, reflect significantly higher

living costs and persistent medians above thresholds (2005).

Beyond economic foundations general lifestyle changes

have made the concept of micro unit accommodations much

more appealing. Since 1981 there has been a heavy increase in

the number of one and two person households within Canada.

Specifically, the rise of single person households has been caused

by augmented values regarding marriage, family formation and the

delay of conjugal unions (Bunting, Filion & Walker, 2010). Between

1971 and 2001 the percentage of males and females married by

the age of 25 plummeted from 65 and 80 percent to 34 and 49

percent respectively (2010). The result is an influx of singles in


the central city without the means of a dual income household.

Furthermore, the lifestyle of this demographic is unique as they

drive urban nightlife, goods purchases and services within dense

urban centers which house congregations of singles (2010). “Most

importantly, it is very much a spatial lifestyle [as] … such lifestyles

and living arrangements are also triggers of change in the social

complexity and social character of cities” (Bunting, Filion & Walker

p.144, 2010). These life course changes provide the proper market

for which the micro-unit typology is intended to satisfy. Because

of the severe affordability issues, composition of the social fabric,

and applicability of sustainability-as-density concepts within

metropolitan central cities the examples of Vancouver and Toronto

will function as the focus for social and economic discussion.

Figure 2.1 - Affordability Index: Any forced circumstance above this ratio is considered unaffordable

= 1 % income not spent on rent

= 1 % spent on rent

Within the City of Toronto, since 1970, the average incomes

of central city neighborhoods have experienced significant

and continued increases as they develop into high-income

neighborhoods generally found near the city’s subway lines and

within the dense urban form (Hulchanski, 2010). These changes

have paralleled a reversal of conditions to the 1970 City of Toronto

where poverty and low-income households have decentralized

to the urban fringes while inner city locales were gentrified

in the name of urban renewal and sustainable development

(2010). Furthermore, in a characterization of continued income

polarization the burgeoning suburban middle class of the 1970s

has all but disappeared and only remains as a limited segregation

between the urban elites and the exurban poverty (2010). These

income concerns are illustrated by an increase in the proportion

of low-income neighborhoods in Toronto from 19 percent in 1970

to 53 percent in 2005 while middle-income households decreased

from 66 percent in 1970 to 29 percent in 2005 (2010). As a result

of these trends three distinct ‘cities’ have been cemented in the

current City of Toronto with a high income centre.

The structural and demographic composition of the

central city illustrates an extremely important aspect to the

necessary provision of affordable solutions for gentrified urban


3.0 affordability in toronto

neighborhoods. The central city holds 17 percent of the population

and is composed of smaller households with a large proportion

of one-person households. It represents the largest gap between

renters and owners in which 41 percent of renters and 21 percent

of owners reside above the 30 percent affordability ratio (2010).

The demographic composition of the area includes an 82 percent

white population and 61 percent of resident over 25 that have a

university document. The residents are predominantly white-collar

employees (2010). This demographic composition is a result of

gentrification which did not replace renters with homeowners,

however introduced new occupants to a continually diversifying

rental stock (Skaburskis. 2012). This is an extremely important

distinction which emphasizes that there is still a thriving, albeit

expensive, rental market in central Toronto. Affordability for this

reason has become a major issue in the Toronto rental market with

private-sector rates increasing at twice the rate of inflation since the

mid 1990’s (Murdies, 2003). However, gentrification is primarily a

function of augmented demand and Skaburskis, in his 2012 article

on gentrification in Toronto, states that he, “[Expects] gentrification

to continue to transform the inner city to displace the remaining

lower-income household not living in social housing” (Skaburskis

p. 201, 2012). As a result, with trends lacking a forecast of change



there is increased need to offer a more affordable typology within

the dense urban metropolitan of Toronto.

Figure 3.1 - Average individual income Toronto Source: (Hulchanski, 2010).

The City of Vancouver has vigorously adopted and

applied densification policies while also experiencing a major

affordability crisis with increasing housing costs (Quastrel et al,

2012). Average rent for studio apartments and one-bedroom

units, in Vancouver, increased 28 percent from 2000 to 2008 with

an average downtown monthly rent of 1,096 dollars in October

2008 (City of Vancouver, 2009). These figures represent the third

highest monthly rental costs behind Calgary and Toronto (2009).

By the 1980’s gentrification in Vancouver had moved into the

downtown (Maaranen & Walks 2008). More recent instances of

gentrification within the downtown have been highly associated

with older architectural styles and have been highly concentrated.

An approximate proportion of 24 percent of housing stock is

contained within gentrifying neighborhoods causing urgency to

offer affordable alternative (2008). As a result average rents have

continued to increase steadily over the last eight years (City of

Vancouver, 2009).

Gentrification concerns stem from the continued loss of single-

room occupancy (SRO) buildings, within the downtown east side,

which consist of rooming houses and residential hotels containing

small single rooms, 10 by 10 feet in size, and represent the most

basic and lowest cost of housing provided by the private market

4.0 affordability in vancouver



(City of Vancouver, 2010). As a result of low revenue streams these

units are vulnerable to disinvestment and redevelopment while, in

many cases, the low-income residents occupying them generally

have no choice other than the streets if SRO accommodations are

not available (2010). 87 percent of open SRO stock is found within

the downtown east side while between January 2008 and the end

of 2009 SRO stock experienced a net reduction of 853 units which

accounted for 16 per cent of total stock (2010). However, close

to two-thirds of those losses were results of conversions of SRO

buildings to non-market housing (2010). It is vital to maintain SRO

stocks within the central city as affordable housing options.

In response, Reliance Properties has taken the Burns

Block development, on Hastings Street in downtown Vancouver,

and ‘pioneered’ the micro-loft concept within the city with 30 of

the smallest rental suites in the country ranging between 226

to 291 square feet (Hawthorne, 2011). Reliance Properties has

championed this heritage development as an ‘affordable’ market

value alternative, at 850 $ per month, in an otherwise expensive

city (Reliance Properties, 2012). However the development has

witnessed wide opposition with many of the view that it represents

a form of gentrification in itself (Hawthorne, 2011). The Burns Block

development represents a rare instance in which an older SRO 850 $per month


building was converted into full market housing. Importantly, all

permanent changes to SRO rental stock, including redevelopment

and conversions, require Council approval in order to be completed

legally (City of Vancouver, 2010). Regardless it is important that

the micro-unit typology is not implemented in a manner which

eradicates low-income forms of housing. It is important to note

that residents of the development applaud the implementation

of micro-units with gratitude and a large willingness to sacrifice

similarly priced larger 400 square foot units, much further away,

for a 5-minute walk to work and proximity to amenities (Hawthorne,

2011). With the majority of tenants between the ages of 25 to

35 many have finally been able to afford their first apartment in

Vancouver as a result of the development and accept the price for

space allocation in the neighborhood (2011).

= 10 square feet

2.83 $ per square foot per month

850 $per month

Figure 2.2 - The cost of the Burns Barn Redevelopment


There is a clear affordability crisis in the central city of

dense metropolitan cities. The manifested inequalities have been

a product of planning policies, growing income polarization,

gentrification and a lack housing alternatives. It is imperative that

there is a remedy for dense central city living at a more affordable

cost. Mimi Hoang and Eric Bunge, the architect couple who won

New York’s adAPT micro-unit competition, made the important

distinction that, “This is not a return to tenement or SRO-style living

… [because] there are amenities and a very social dimension to the

design” (Finn p.1, 2013). Their winning submission consisted of a

modular prefabricated design including 55 units, 350 square feet

or less, which stacked together would create a 10 storey apartment

building complete with common terrace, laundry room and bike

storage (2013). The distinction illustrates the fact that the purpose

of the micro-unit is generally not to offer low-income housing for

the lowest social segments, however to primarily offer affordable

housing solutions to moderate income young professionals,

creative sector employees and students in the dense culture and

sustainable infrastructure which has become synonymous with

the urban elite (Quastrel et al, 2012). This does not mean that

a proportion of micro-units could not be offered at government

assisted rates for lower-income brackets, however that the design

5.0 necessity


of micro-accommodations is to better integrate moderate social

classes and most importantly reduce barriers to entry for singles

which do not benefit from a dual earner household. Importantly,

the micro-unit concept provides a more affordable housing

alternative that can achieve great social mixing while continuing

to promote sustainability-as-density principles as a result of the

smaller unit sizes. However, even as micro-accommodations

are being introduced in dense metropolitans like San Francisco

and New York the primary criticism of the typology, within North

American metropolitans, remains their relatively cramped nature

in relation to average apartment sizes on the continent. This is in

strict contrast to European attitudes where the typology has been

far more popular.

The polish architect Jakub Szczesny unveiled his own

micro-apartment design in Warsaw, Poland consisting of a thin

structure, only 5 feet wide, which was implemented in 40 foot long

slender alley. Although this concept may not have the same intent

as that focused on in this discussion it illustrates that, “European

cities, owing to their long history, have specific spatial structures:

relatively small, but very dense, with a lot of contrasts in a limited

space” (Cassiers & Kesteloot p.1917, 2010). It is through this

urban structure that these locales facilitate social experiences and


confrontations in the urban space (2010). Cassier and Kestoloot,

in their article on social inequality and cohesion in European,

illustrate the loss of social cohesion as an element of urban policies

in favor of market oriented private investment enrichment (2010).

The argument follows that central cities risk a degradation of the

urban community to a facade for shopping, leisure and tourism.

The loss of diversity in both the physical and social environment

has major ramifications on the true cohesion and lifestyle which

can develop within the urban fabric. As a result it is imperative

to create innovative forms of urban structure to ensure social

inclusion and integration as, “…Civil society adheres to a form of

urban planning that is at the service of urban society as a whole,

aiming at a socially just city (Cassiers & Kesteloot p. 1919, 2010).

it was Kevin Lynch who stated the greatest of cities was the one

which offer its inhabitants choice and diversity (Lynch, 1980).

The micro-unit concept can effectively provide the diversity and

compactness of European urban spaces in sporadic and intricate

implementations within the dense urban core to promote social

cohesion and economic inclusion.Jakub Szczesny’s Micro Unit Form

Proposed Micro Unit Form

= 5 feet by 5 feet measurement

Despite the necessity for any dwelling typology the provision of

such spaces is dependent on building code regulations and zoning

legislation that provide the foundation of planning standards. The

Ontario building code states, under section 9.5.8.1, that, “Despite

Subsections 9.5.4. to 9.5.7., where living, dining, bedroom and

kitchen spaces are combined in a dwelling unit that contains sleeping

accommodation for not more than 2 persons, the area of the combined

spaces shall be not less than 13.5 m2”, which is equivalent to 142

square feet (Ontario, 2012). The National Building Code of Canada

further supports these standards and outlines similar parameters for

minimum combined unit sizes. Furthermore, the Toronto Official plan

ensures policies that support residential development that provide

a full range of housing opportunities concerning type, tenure, unit

size and affordability (City of Toronto, 2010). With regard to specific

zoning regulations the minimum floor area, height and density of a

given development is specific to the site on which the development

is being proposed (City of Toronto, 2013).

In areas and on sites which have specific zoning legislation

mandating high minimum unit size requirements the use of inclusionary

zoning could be applied in order to entice the development of

affordable housing through micro-unit accommodations. Inclusionary

zoning/housing is a policy tool requiring developers of projects to


6.0 framework

produce an amount of affordable housing throughout market-rate

residential development as a condition of approval (Mah, 2009).

Both mandatory and voluntary forms offer certain incentives

like density bonuses, fast-tracked approval, reduced parking

requirements, flexible design standards, or tax increment financing

to offset the cost of providing affordable housing (2009). This

synthesis could be applied in two forms. To reduce minimum size

standards the inclusionary program could request affordable units

as collateral for the bonusing. However, in order to entice micro-

unit development the opposite could occur where incentives are

offered to developers in order to promote the construction of micro-

units as a market-rate affordable housing typology. Although the

two scenarios represent separate implementations the synthesis

of inclusionary housing and micro-unit accommodations can

effectively offer social and economic cohesion in a fabric of urban

elites. Furthermore, the provisions of such units as affordable

alternatives may make inclusionary housing more favorable

amongst developers as the market-rate of the smaller units won’t

impact developer profits like government subsidized affordable

units (2009). In the Canadian context there are generally policies

which permit and support the implementation of micro-apartments.


7.0 design

The physical implementation of a micro-apartment is vital

to ensuring the objectives necessary in providing a new typology

while avoiding the concerns of various stakeholders. The Burns

Barn development in Vancouver offers an optimal starting point to

offer this analysis. By ensuring that these concerns are negated

through specific design implementations it is possible to reduce

negative impacts, increase positive outcomes and hasten adoption

of the concept.

Criticism ensued the Burns Barn redevelopment as a

result of the SRO conversion. Furthermore, it can be assumed

that the renovation of a heritage building would have come at a

premium to developers causing higher than necessary end costs

to consumers in what was billed as an affordable alternative. It

is recommended that the implementation of micro-apartments

use a pre-fabricated modular construction to ensure affordability,

simplicity and focus largely on new construction that will not

negatively impact current housing. A pre-fabricated modular

method allows for faster material delivery, cost savings, greater

quality control and improved on site construction safety (Andjelic,

2012). Since the industrial revolution mass production has been

used as an effective cost reduction method (Halman et al, 2008).

High-end modular hotel construction in Europe has proven the


capacity of prefabricated modular units to offer quality medium

density accommodations throughout the world (Andjelic, 2012).

This method ensures demand can be smoothly accommodated

with increased efficiency, optimized marketing effectiveness and

reduced complexity (Halman et al, 2008). A modular construction

would also offer flexibility in structure construction that would

allow the shell of a unit to be used with a secondary use, such as

a fitness room, communal patio or other shared facilities.

The small unit size combined with a modular construction

allows for the flexibility necessary to locate micro-apartments in

various urban voids and dense urban environments. An urban

void can be characterized as the absence of a construction

in a defined space (Akkerman, 2009). These spaces are often

feared, associated with danger and generally ignored within the

urban fabric as mere gaps in a continuum (2009). As a result it is

opportune that these accommodations be placed intricately within

the existing urban fabric where voids exist however a conventional

structure would be cramped. In this way the new typology stems

urban decay by eradicating unsightly gaps and propones Jane

Jacobs’ concept of a continuous vibrant street frontage to optimize

interaction and pedestrian experience (Jacobs, 1961). Using

proper design techniques these urban voids can be augmented


into useful appreciated spaces that bring diversity, character and

social cohesion into the dense urban fabric.

Beyond the exterior implementation the interior execution

remains equally as important to the success of micro-units in

their intended purpose. It is important to provide space efficient

furniture which can adapt to the needs of the occupant in order

to make the small space as useful and cost-effective as possible.

This can be achieved through the provision of foldable furniture,

efficient storage options, mattresses which convert vertically

into a cabinet housing, and linear counter design. Furthermore,

in order to ensure for psychological well being natural light

should be vital through the use of large windows. In this way

the space also feels larger than the available 250 square feet. A

small water closet near the entrance should use sliding doors in

order to prevent problems with door openings. The ability to offer

such miniature units necessitates communal resources such as

laundry, fitness and common space in other parts of the structure.

Through the proposed modular design these amenities can be

efficiently and easily provided. The following graphics represent

an original implementation of the micro unit concept, using the

above discussed methods, in Kitchener, Ontario within an urban

void directly opposite of Kitchener City Hall.



8.0 visuals

KING STREET

CHARLES STREET

WAT

ER S

TREE

T

KITCHENER

CITY

HALLSITE

Figure 4.0 - The site is located in downtown Kitchener on King Street.

Figure 4.1 - The site is currently an urban void between two buildings.


Figure 4.2 - The design of a modular micro-apartment unit creates a single prefabricated self contained shell. The unit is purpose built and able to be manufactured through an assembly process. One side of the unit is completely glazed for optimal natural light and a spacious feel in a less than spacious enviornment.

The singular units will be added individually into a large x-frame framework. This offers optimal flexibility in the type, layout and purpose of each unit within the structure. If a unit is vacant a new module for a common space can be added while if a unit it damaged a new unit can be switched out. The exposed x-frame also adds to the architectural flare of new construction within a dense built environment.

Figure 4.3 - On the next page reside three separate configurations of the same unit which is facilitated through efficient furniture design. A cabinet houses the mattress vertically when not in use allowing space for either a dinette, work space or lounge area. The dinning table is stored in the vanity as a foldable piece of furniture. The desk fold out of the middle wall.


17'

15'

VANITY

FOYER

KITCHEN

DESK/CHAIR

17'

15'

BEDVANITY

FOYER

KITCHEN

17'

15'

VANITY

FOYER

KITCHEN

DINING TABLE

study

bedroom

dinette


Figure 5.0 - This section elevation shows the foyer in the bottom right with five micro-units residing in the same structure. The x-ray of the vanity can be seen in the background.

Figure 5.1 - Together these units create a single stable structure which ass diversity in compact space facilitating social cohesion through the mix of income and social groups.


Figure 6.0 - Final Conceptualization (Kitchener, Ontario)

During a period of increasing income polarization, growing

inequality and a push for sustainable development micro-unit

accommodations have many benefits as an affordable market

alternative. As a result the concept has taken hold in major

metropolitan cores such as Vancouver while being championed

as the next revolutionary typology of the Manhattan streetscape.

Although the policy and zoning generally allow for the units, the

acceptance of smaller living accommodations has not been

widely accepted in North America. Many citizen groups have

vocalized against the concept based on various quality of life and

gentrification concerns. Furthermore some developers believe the

developments do not have the revenue capacity to truly become

mainstream. Therefore it is extremely important that the micro-unit

concept is design and implemented in a way that is conducive

to achieving multiple stakeholder interests. Through proper

implementation this typology is able to provide the adequacy,

suitability and affordability, outlined by the CMHC’s Core Housing

Needs Model, for an entire demographic of young singles (Murdie,

2003). If approached carefully the micro-apartment concept holds

great potential for achieving Ebenezer Howard’s long standing

goal of health, harmony, dignity and happiness within the urban

structure (Ward, 1998).

9.0 conclusion

Figure 6.0 - Final Conceptualization (Kitchener, Ontario)


Akkerman, Abraham. (2009). Urban Void and the Reconstruction of Neo-

Platonic City-Form. Ethics, Place and Environment: 12(2) 205-218.

Bunting, Trudi & Filion, Pierre & Walker, Ryan. Canadian Cities in Transition:

New Directions in the Twenty-First Century. Toronto: Oxford University

Press.

Cassiers, Tim & Kesteloot, Christian. (2010). Socio-Spatial Inequalities and

Social Cohesion in European Cities. Urban Studies: 49(9) 1909-1924.

City of Toronto. (2013). Toronto: Zoning By Law. Retrieved on Sunday, April 7,

2013 from http://www.toronto.ca/zoning/bylaw/ZBL_NewProvision_

Chapter10_10.htm

City of Toronto. (2010). Toronto: Official Plan. Retrieved on Sunday, April 7,

2013

from http://www.toronto.ca/planning/official_plan/introduction.htm

City of Vancouver. (2009). Housing Policy, Social Development, Community

Services Group. January 2009. Retrieved on Saturday, April 6, 2013

from http://www.tenants.bc.ca/ckfinder/userfiles/files/2008cmhcdata.

pdf

CMHC. (2008). Research Highlight: The Dynamics of Housing Affordability.

Socio-Economic Series: 8(2) 1-10.

CMHC. (2005). The Impact of Zoning and Building Restrictions on Housing

Affordability. Socio-Economic Series: 5(12), 1-4.

10.0 works cited



Dawkins, Casey & Nelson Arthur. (2002). Urban Containment Policies and

Housing prices: An International Comparison with Implications for

Future Research. Land Use Policy: 19(1) 1-12.

Finn, Robin. (2013). Living Small is the Best Revenge. The New York Times.

Mar 3rd, 2013. Retrieved on Sunday, April 7, 2013 from http://www.

lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=6742&sr=BYLIN

E%28Robin%29%2Bw%2F3%2BFinn%29%2BAND%2BHLEA

D%28Living+Small+Is+the+Best+Revenge%29%2BAND%2BDATE%

2BIS%2B2013-03-3

Hawthorne, Karen. (2011). Micro-Living: Canada’s Smallest Apartment

the Size of a Walk in Closet. National Post. Dec 21st, 2011. Retrieved

on Saturday, April 6, 2013 from http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/21/

micro-living-canadas-smallest-apartment-the-size-of-a-walk-in-closet/

Hulchanski, David. (2010). The Three Cities Within Toronto: Income Polarization

Among Toronto’s Neighborhoods, 1970-2000. Cities Centre: University

of Toronto.

Jacobs, Jane. (1961). The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York:

Pantheon Books.

Lynch, Kevin. (1980). What Makes a Good City: General Theory of Good City

Form; A New Try at an Old Subject. Germany: Holst-lezing.

Lafleur, Steve. (2011). ‘Smart Growth’ isn’t Very Smart. The Record. Nov 7th,

2011. Retrieved on Saturday, April 6, 2013 from http://www.therecord.

com/opinion/columns/article/620349---smart-growth-isn-t-very-smart


Maaranen, Richard & Walks, Alan. (2008). The Timing, Patterning, & Forms

of Gentrification & Neighbourhood Upgrading in Montreal, Toronto

& Vancouver, 1961 to 2001. Centre for Urban and Community Studies:

University of Toronto.

Mumford, Lewis. (1965). Utopia, the City and the Machine. Daedalus: 94(2),

271-292.

Murdies, Robert. (2003). Housing Affordability and Toronto’s Rental Market:

Perspectives from the Housing Careers of Jamaican, Polish and

Somali Newcomers. Housing, Theory and Society: 20(1) 183-196

Ontario. (2012). Building Code Act, 1992: Ontario Regulation 350/60 –

Building Code. Service Ontario. Retrieved on Sunday, April 7,

2013 from http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/

elaws_regs_060350_e.htm

Quastrel et al. (2012). Sustainability as Density and the Return of the Social:

The Case of Vancouver, British Columbia. Urban Geography: 33(7),

1055-1084.

Reliance Properties. (2012). Micro-Loft Living – An Affordable Alternative in

an Otherwise Expensive City. Retrieved on Sunday, April 7, 2013 from

http://www.relianceproperties.ca/micro-lofts

Skaburskis, Andrejs. (2012). Gentrification and Toronto’s Changing Household

Characteristics and Income Distribution. Journal of Planning Education

and Research: 32(2) 191-203.

Ward, Stephen. (1998). The Vision Beyond Planning. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 64(2), 128-129.

urban adaptation

Documents

urban boundary

urban adaption

urban elites

dense urban fabric

continued urban adaptation

urban containment strategies

social sustainability

urban livelihood quastrel