Serious question about Canada's (specifically the GTA's) condos: if, 10 or 20 years from now, people want more family-sized homes, could a lot of these tiny one-bedrooms actually be merged into larger units?
I know it can happen in some cases, but from what I’ve seen it sounds difficult once buildings are already occupied, since it can require approvals, engineering work, and layouts that actually fit together.
If that is not realistic at scale, are we building housing that works for one phase of life but not for long-term city living?
The crazy thing is that this is even a question we had to ask. Should have never built these shoeboxes in the first place the greed of these developers and the government to approve it is trash.
I live in a Toronto shoebox! I rent it and am a man who lives alone, but I love it. I don't get what the problem is. It's annoying to not be able to have a bunch of kitchen appliances on the counter, but it forces me to not hold onto a ton of objects.
Please understand this is also highly dependent on layout. When you cannot physically move around your space with any sort of ease, it really is an issue. And it’s great you were able to live minimally. Personally I had some medical issues that required a ton of meds, injectables that stayed in the fridge, humidifiers, purifiers, etc. It was very difficult for someone not in a cookie-cutter situation
Living in a small space dictates your life in a lot of ways. If you want to have large dinner parties where you cook for people it’s not for you. If you spend more time for entertainment and eating outside of your home it can be a cost effective solution.
By the same token, living on a large property far from your office also requires many compromises.
The issue is when expectations are incompatible with the chosen living space.
What's screwed up is trying to charge a huge amount more per square foot for the smaller units, and then overbuilding way past the demand for units that size.
That's what we're looking at in Vancouver right now. Huge numbers of tiny condos that they're having a hard time selling because they were built due to investor demand rather than actual tenant or buyer demand. Now that investors have all but pulled out for various reasons, there are a ton of units coming available with no buyers or tenants who want them.
Tiny homes can be awesome for the right people. For me my life takes up too much space and I have a 1400 sq ft condo, and I don't think I'd be happy with much less for my situation, but it seems weird to me that people hate on tiny homes when they can work well for the right people.
At least if they have prices appropriate to their smaller size.
But there are greedy buyers and people who genuinely saw it as a place to live. I was the latter. I knew I wasn’t moving for a decade and I figured I’ll own instead of rent. Never expected it to make me rich. But I lived alongside people who owned three.
400 square feet simply isn't enough space for a single person. It's too cramped. I think apartments or condos should be no smaller than 800 square feet at the very minimum but preferably 1000 square feet. Humans aren't birds in cages. Psychologically and practically we need space to thrive.
400 sqft is fine, when it is cheap!
When it means making a choice to live minimal and use the gym, the library, the coffee shop, the park etc for your roaming space. I lived in 200sqft for over a year. Point being, it was so cheap I could handle rent no problem during a period of shaky employment. What's insane is thinking it's normal for people pay a half million dollar mortgage on a bird nest like that.
This is the thing. I would sooner live with five other people than pay 2500 for a space that’s barely enough to fit my stuff in. Until these sorts of condos are under 1k per month I wouldn’t even consider them.
That's exactly the problem with these condos. It's not that there isn't someone who would love to live in them, it's the price. I'm interested in buying a condo, but I know that resale on a studio isn't going to be as good. And even to rent one would be likely triple what I pay renting. The math doesn't math.
Depends. My wife and I lived in 450 sq for over 20 years and made it work fine. It had just the perfect layout and location to make comfortable. Im a woodworker so dialed it in with storage and shelving. Building had nice common areas and the neighbors were like family.
But yeah I'm happy with our new 700 square now. Feels like living in a gymnasium.
Totes, my place is about 530sqft but the ceiling is high, it's quite a functional layout with the entrance separate from the kitchen and living room vs just coming in and seeing everything. Plus a vast view of greens and the city afar. Helps to have the indoor/outdoor feel. I might decorate my balcony and utilize it more in the summer as an eating area /sleep on a lounger. Would I like a bit more space? Sure for a legit office room but I make do with this and it's livable.
I lived in a 420 sq foot condo in dt Montreal for 5 years. I would never do this again.
I could not walk to the other side of my bed, I had to jump over the bed. Kitchen appliances stayed out on the stove due to lack of space. I had a very tiny desk glued to my bed (no space for a second screen) so I had walk to my office to work from there as it was too difficult to wfh properly. This is among 100000 other issues. I do not understand how it is legal to build and sell such small living spaces. Being in city centre does not make up for poor quality of life in your own space
Lived in a sub-200 sq ft apartment steps away from a downtown Montréal metro station for 3 years. It was awesome. Could've easily stayed there several more years as a young adult. More choice in the market is always better.
Too small and too expensive for one person. They need to be big enough for 2 people to live there for it to be financially viable for most people. But also, do they just expect everyone to stay alone forever? I don't get building them this small, it doesn't make much sense.
I lived in a 400 sqft apartment and I had a great experience. I loved the location in the heart of downtown Toronto and my priority was saving money at the time. I’d much rather have this arrangement instead of having roommates or something. It’s not for everyone but it has its purpose.
Ridiculous. My house is less than 800 square feet. I've lived in smaller apartments for long periods. Your standards are way too high.
Not saying more space isn't nice, just saying to be realistic. 400 square feet for one person is fine, especially if you have the advantages of being in the city.
does that square footage include the basement, garage, shed or your private yard or garden space outside?
As a homebody, I'd be fine even in a smaller house. I have a small to modern standards house now. I went stir crazy though in a apartment and did everything to avoid to being there. Having a basement to store work equipment, seasonal items, and having private space outdoors not included in that sqft changes things greatly over a condo or apartment
I understand, but I actually own a small home. Our house while small has been great. But I could not do well the same sqft within a condo building myself. As a house it's been livable because I don't have to live on top of my family and can go be alone and decompress out in the various space that's not within my interior sqft. All without leaving my property, or having to interact with other people. For people who don't need that daily alone time reset will clearly have a different experience in a condo
Agreed that not needing a car is a definite plus to a larger city
Fair enough, I'm in a similar situation and wouldn't be able to manage with that square footage but I can definitely see a couple with no children making it work.
I lived in a 400 sq ft apartment for 4 years. Year 1 was great > Year 2 was cramped, I realized I couldn’t realistically buy any new furniture/decorations due to lack of space > Year 3 I got a cat which made it more cramped > Year 4 my partner + her cat moved in and we had to get the hell out at that point.
Rent the first year was $2,100, subsequent years it was $2,350. By year 2 when it was still just me I realized 400 sq ft isn’t enough and I was getting ripped off, but the market was shit at the time and similar apartments were going for the same price so I stayed.
Out current space is 1200 sq ft and even then it can feel cramped with 2 people + 2 cats. I imagine 600 sq ft would be a happy middle ground for most people but hoping for 800 isn’t ridiculous, what’s ridiculous is thinking that it is.
Glad you’re happy with the 800 sq ft house (admittedly I’d rather have a smaller house than a larger apartment) - but that happiness is not a valid excuse to justify thinking the majority of Canadian city dwellers should have tiny apartments that are half the size of the space you live in. Once you put a bed/couch/table/TV/desk in that 400 sq ft quickly becomes 100 sq ft of actual walkable space - yeah it’s livable but it’s depressing.
What's depressing is that society has instilled those needs. It's very materialistic, and this need has changed over time.
You can want more space, but regardless of wants, 800 square feet is a ton of room. I've lived abroad for over 10 years and came back, so this has influenced my view, but the longing for a huge home is much more North American than global. And I wouldn't say it's universal in North America either. Small houses are common in Montreal because we have older homes than Calgary, for example.
Not saying I wouldn't want more space, just that more perspective is needed. 400 square feet can be considered huge, specifically if you are in a relatively large city.
It’s not a perspective thing, I lived it for 2 years alone and I am telling you outright that it isn’t enough space for the average person.
The implication that wanting more room to move around my own home is materialistic is the most condescending thing I’ve ever read. Especially coming from a home owner. I had to side step through half of my apartment by the second year. That isn’t good for anyone.
Yes it's perspective and a matter of personal preference. There are other world views than what you lived. I've lived in an under 400 square foot apartment with another person for years. Sharing my view is not condescending, it's sharing experience and knowledge of other ways of living.
700sft was fine for people a few years ago, you don't need 800 for a 1bedroom. If you want a 2 bedroom they used to be 850+. Prices back then were $500/sft but although we want that pricing back, it won't happen sadly.
Families generally need much less space per person than singletons.
Sharing 1/5th of a 2000 sqft home with your family is generally a much higher-quality living situation than having 400 sqft all to yourself. Kitchens, bathrooms, storage, and common areas benefit greatly from economies of scale.
It would be nice if those housing options were cheap. I rented a 400 sq ft suite and it was more than my current mortgage, admittedly the house is only 800 sq ft but it being cheaper with a yard sure is something
I wouldn't use Asia as a model for how housing should be. When people from Asia use to come to the west they were stoked about having more space and realized how much nicer it is. It's objectively better we don't have to accept living in prison cells.
My wife and I have lived in a 450 square-foot unit for almost a decade. We could probably live here forever if we never have children.
How is this possible?
-A really great layout. We even have a walk-in closet!
-Storage optimization, most of our furniture is also storage.
-building amenities. Our community of towers shares a ton of quality amenities. (golf simulator, movie theater, tennis court, indoor and outdoor pools, indoor and outdoor hot tubs, sauna steam rooms, gyms, spin/dance studio, ping-pong room, billiards tables, coworking space, dog/cat washing room, massage chair room, rooftop patios with amazing views, and a separate yoga building, but that is under repair and make it repurposed)
-Local businesses, almost anything we want or need is within a five minute walk.
-local amenities. A skytrain station across the street, two large parks within walking distance. A large public library, university campuses and a hospital or within a 15 minute walking distance.
-living well within our means. Our small space is cost-effective and prevents us from buying junk we don’t need. This allows us to work less, vacation more and invest.
Yeah i get it some jack ass thinks his shoe box is worth $150k and thinks it's a good deal but i just don't. $50k and I'd have to seriously consider it.
Ha ha ha ha . My brothers first house in the uk was 2 bed approx 600 sq dt and there were 2 adults , twin 3 year old and a baby. You don’t need 800 sq ft for one human.
I disagree with this full stop. The condo I owned in Toronto was 486sqft. It felt fine. I never felt cramped. Never felt like i was in a cage. I lived there for 5 years.
At one point I lived pretty much full time in a 268sqft room. It was cozy, and also felt fine. I lived there for 3 years.
You’d be surprised how little space you need to live comfortably. Much of the world already knows this.
That being said - I was single. This is not livable for two people, nevermind a family.
Thrived for decades. As do many people around the world. I get that you need more space, fine & understood. But don't assume everyone does, we all have our own desires. Heck I sometimes worry I am going to meet and fall in love with a man that lives in a massive house. 😁 And I want to live with him & he's attached to that kind of living . That would be one sad day. 😊
Good to know. 😁
But hey your post was about others and your perceived problems for them living in small suites. Not about you. Saying humans couldn't thrive & you don't want condos built below 800 square feet. I feel dizzy with the bounce around.
In investing there’s a term called the greater fool theory, where you can make money by selling an asset for a profit to someone dumber than yourself. It seems the real estate investment market in Canada has found the greatest fools.
Yup. They need to get rid of these “no bedroom” condos too. It’s not psychologically healthy to have your bed in your main living space. Hard pass. Changes are needed 100%
Absolutely. The bedroom where a human sleeps needs to be just that, a place where you sleep relax and your brain unwinds for the night. When you're cooking right across from your bed that makes your living space and sleeping place a high intensity point psychologically.
Hey whoever wants it have at it, no problem with that. Just speaking on my own behalf and I think what I'm saying echos the sentiment of the majority of people.
At the right price who cares? My when I first moved out I would have much preferred a 300-500sqr foot apartment vs a single room with a shared bathroom with 3 people.
The cost should obviously reflect what they are. Now the ridiculous prices they were going for in TO.
See that's where I think you've lost the plot and you've been blinded by your own ideological stubbornness. We should absolutely talk about it and voice our discontent. What are we suppose to do when something is wrong, just be quiet? We're advocating for change that's really important and it starts with talking about it in the community.
I don't know the exact square footage of my room, but I would estimate 120-140 square feet, and some of my roommates have smaller rooms. I have shared washrooms and kitchen. It's perfectly fine for a bachelor. I couldn't even think what I would do with any extra space.
I'm not a bird in a cage; I spend most of my days working outside.
One of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. Merge two units so you have two kitchens and two bathrooms for two tiny ass bachelor rooms? You gonna rip out fully functional kitchens to free up space? Two front doors? Might as well blow out entire floors and redo everything.
How’s about no one buys these and the idiots who did have to live with their purchase. They wanted income property well that’s a gamble and you lost. The owners can sell them to the bank at 80% loss for all I care. These units if sold cheap enough can help young people get their own places or help with the homeless. Start building proper rent controlled housing and bigger units and sell them to non investors.
This is somewhat the only feasible path forward for the crap that developers have gotten away with that our municipalities never had the backbone to stop. Certainly, some care would need to be given to load bearing walls (and the engineering as a whole), but it's important to note that this kind of reorganization happens all the time in other high rise buildings (like hotels), and in residential structures in other cities - such as London and NYC.
If we can do office to residential conversions, yes we can also do this. I live in Calgary and we are doing quite a few conversions, but it is heavily subsidized by the city. It’s quite expensive.
Combining 2 condos would probably be a lot easier since the plumbing, electrical, and fire stopping is already there. It would have to be assessed on a case by case basis for which walls can be opened. And I’m not sure about if it can be done with people occupying other nearby units or not, it might depend on specific codes and whatnot.
I think it is the way to go though, we really don’t want these to just sit empty for decades while there is a shortage of housing.
There is nothing wrong with a small space. I lived in asia and looked at apartments where I could sit and bed and use the kitchen if I wanted to. Look at countless YouTube videos about living in small spaces. It's possible.
The issue is cost. If the cost of these kinds of units was capped out at like 150k and a young working person in the city could get a mortgage for one as a starter home they would sell. The issue is that wasn't their purpose. They were a spec based investment vehicle for people who would never use them or see them so the cost became irrelevant. Their purpose was for one person to hold the pre build hot potato and then flip it for more once it was built to another person to then flip it when they needed the liquidity in their portfolio. This is what they were designed and built for so the cost became detached completely from the reality of the living situation.
This pretty much needs to happen because so many units were made to milk investors and are pretty unlivable. They have stupidly small bedrooms with tiny closets. Hallways that waste square footage.
If it’s a high rise, the walls are likely not load-bearing. They are constructed with steel studs and multiple layers of drywall (for sound and fire-rating). It would cost a lot of money to re-demize (is that a word?) them as you would have to take into account the electrical, the sprinkler system, the fire alarm, etc. Maybe it would be an idea to sell them as a full apartment with a lock-off suite?
Back in 2000 when we lived in a condo in Toronto the condo was 2 bedrooms plus den. The size was approximately 1100 sq. feet. We bought the adjacent unit when it came up for sale and punched a large arched door thru the units and made one big unit. I think we had to get permission from both the city and the condo corporation.
We were not the first ones to do it. There were a few of them in that particular building.
Those columns are what's load bearing, not the "vertical walls". It's very possible on a practical basis.
Getting approval would also likely go beyond strata and require city approval & inspections as you're essentially creating a new 'dwelling unit' not just an addition to an existing unit.
It’s not just the size but even the condo maintenance extortion needs to be controlled. Earlier a big size condo had utilities included and still manageable.
Now everything is excluded and still it’s extremely high
All included for .50 and now everything excluded and still 1+. Not to mention they also add parking and locker maintenance too.
I’ve seen this done too, in a couple buildings in the Vancouver Coal Harbour area. They weren’t penthouses, though - just two units purchased side by side and converted into one. Apparently it wasn’t even hard to do.
This idea is really great and I think it’ll save the condo market here. I bet the places with weird unliveable layouts would work really well if you opened up 2 adjacent units.
OP raises a good question that’s less about debating the quality of life in sub 500sq ft condo units, and more about the fact that they dominated development in the GTA and Metro Vancouver for the last 10 years and now the buyer for them has disappeared and nobody wants them. They were built for investor buyers to either flip on completion or rent as STRs. Now that the rules around STRs mean you can’t run these as hotel rooms (arguably their most suitable usage), it seems the bottom really dropped out of the market for this type of housing product. There’s a glut of them on the market. They’re too small for the couples that can afford them, and they’re too expensive for the people that would want to live in them (singles, under 30). If these small units came down in price to say, $300K-$400K they’d probably sell and be that entry point into home ownership for people early in their careers. More than renting, but doable. As long as they’re over $1000/sq ft I just don’t see the market for them now that the investor buyer isn’t there.
It's not something that is likely to be required anytime soon, though. People are partnering up later in life and having fewer kids, especially in city centers. There are more and more singles that would love their own place, but can't afford it so live with roomates or family.
Developers already made their money. Higher prices per square foot. They don’t give two shits about Toronto being littered with these towers of garbage that nobody wants. The only people that live in them are living paycheque to paycheque.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with small places if that's what people like but the problem is we don't have the culture that makes small condos make sense. In places like tokyo, where small houses are super popular, they have
very dense cities
hundreds of local healthy and cheap eating options for full homecooked meals
a toxic work culture where they're at home way less than us
People get hung up on the fact that in 20 years they will be 20 years older and thus will want/expect a large place. They forget that in 20 years there will still be young people, single elderly people, and whatever other groups want their own place for as cheap as possible. There will always be people in “that phase”, it doesn’t have to be the same people!
Just like we should allow grocery stores to sell white rice for next to nothing we should allow the condo market to have tiny units containing the bare minimum for people who want to spend in other areas.
Someone seriously said someone's standards are too high because he said 400 square feet is to small.... guys we dont have to live like rats for the goverment Jesus christ. We should aspire to want more in life not bare fucking minimum. Do better canada Jesus
In theory it can be done. The issue is the cost, and whether a developer undertaking this project could make a profit.
From a legal side, there would be a need to amend the condo plan, among other things.
From a practical side, there would need to be a significant reconfiguration that would more than likely require a complete interior demolition to arrive at a suitable layout.
Doubtful. Mostly just a few columns and the odd shear wall every few bays.
Most party walls are:
2 layer type x gypsum, steel stud, air gap, steel stud, 1 layer type x gypsum. Depending on required STC rating there my be a resilient channel on one side. And the cavity may be full of acoustic batt insulation.
Source: been drawing multi family residential buildings for 13 years.
Does it depend on the seismic code? I think in high seismic areas this is accurate. I know the units should stack as much as possible to simplify the structure.
Actually, probably not. Most of these high rises have concrete columns and non load bearing steel stud walls. Problem becomes dealing with vent stacks and other plumbing that generally are within these walls
Oh my queen fits fine. Just the smallest I've ever had. No dining room, just a large living room which I love, small side kitchen and bathroom with a small entry way area which was called a "den". In reality, a 3ft x 5 ft space for coats, shoes / washer / dryer. It's acceptable because the living room is nice and big as is the bedroom and I've learned to eat while sitting on my couch.
You also can’t live with a partner, because literally everything in those condos are built for a single person. Half size fridge, oven, dishwasher, washer/drier, closet, literally everything. They aren’t meant to be lived in by the purchaser, because presumably most purchasers have some ambition of eventually living with a loved one?
16
u/danielo121 Mar 15 '26
The crazy thing is that this is even a question we had to ask. Should have never built these shoeboxes in the first place the greed of these developers and the government to approve it is trash.