The Second Egress:
A Wicked Problem



Conrad Speckert
McGill University
School of Architecture


January 4, 2021
Revised March 18, 2022





A means of egress is defined by the 2015 National Building Code of Canada as a “continuous path of travel provided for the escape of persons from any point in a building or contained open space to a separate building, an open public thoroughfare, or an exterior open space protected from fire exposure from the building and having access to an open public thoroughfare.”1 The building code requires two means of egress for all multi-unit residential buildings, such that buildings of three storeys are subject to the same basic requirement as buildings of thirteen, or even thirty storeys. The implications of this rule upon the floor plan and therefore the efficiency of mid-rise buildings is immense and creates a significant barrier to the construction of the ‘missing middle’ of housing typologies.


“The problem in Toronto isn’t building tall or small. It’s building in between.” 3


An urban transect is a simple conceptual diagram to describe the gradient of densification in housing typologies from detached single-family dwellings to duplex, townhouse, courtyard, and mid-rise apartments up to high-rise residential towers. In the context of Toronto, the extremely uneven distribution of these housing typologies as a city of predominantly detached single-family dwellings and a downtown core of high-rise condo towers has amplified the present crisis of housing affordability.4 This ‘missing middle’ is the subject of a growing discourse concerning urban planning policy and the restrictive zoning of residential detached housing, commonly referred to as the ‘Yellowbelt’, that covers 75% of buildable land area in Toronto.5 The political and social stability of these neighbourhoods has engrained a regulatory permanence that displaces densification and creates an inequity of development opportunities.



Missing Middle - Image Courtesy City of Edmonton



“In many of Toronto’s residential neighbourhoods deemed to be stable or imbued with character, our current zoning regulations make it far easier to build a 5,000 square foot single-family house than a multi-unit low-rise apartment or a rental suite in a house.” 6


It would be reasonable to expect that as buildings increase in scale and occupancy, corresponding regulatory frameworks would adjust proportionately. In 2005, the Province of Ontario established the Greenbelt to prevent additional urban sprawl around Toronto, compelling developers to look inward at the existing urban fabric.7 Simultaneously, the principles of new urbanism, especially as advocated for through the writing and presence of activist Jane Jacobs in Toronto, influenced urban planners to reconsider the city’s approach towards density and the design of residential areas. In order to accommodate growth without defaulting to the high rise typologies of the downtown core or risking disturbance to the ‘Yellowbelt’, planners identified arterial roads as appropriate opportunities for densification. Officially adopted into the Toronto Official Plan in 2010, the Avenues and Mid-rise Buildings Performance Standards established building heights corresponding to the width of the adjacent street along the main transit corridors of the city.8 Though the policy change does not apply to the ‘Yellowbelt’ and it’s single-family residential detached zoning, it provides a critical opportunity for the ‘missing middle’ without disrupting the entrenched stability of these neighbourhoods.


Toronto's Yellowbelt (Courtesy Gil Meslin, mapTO).


The Avenues and Mid-rise Buildings Performance Standards describe mid-rise buildings as “the in between scale of building, they are bigger than houses but smaller than towers. Mid-rise buildings have a good scale and relationship to the street. They define or make walls to the street that are tall enough to feel like a city and provide lots of usable space, but low enough to let the sun in and open the view to the sky from the street. They support a comfortable pedestrian environment and animate the street by lining the sidewalk with doors and windows with active uses including stores, restaurants, services, grade related apartments, and community uses. Mid-rise buildings may contain a single use like an office or residential apartments, but they usually contain a mix of uses which may include retail, office, community service, and residential all in the same building. The height of a mid-rise building varies from street to street, as we define mid-rises as buildings that are no taller than the width of their adjacent street right-of-way. In Toronto, on the narrower 20 meter wide streets in the downtown, a mid-rise is 5 or 6 storeys high. On the wider arterial streets outside of the Downtown, a mid-rise may be taller up to a maximum of 11 storeys on the widest Avenues.”9 This concise description of building scale, program and especially the relationship to the street articulates a deliberate vision for the main streets of Toronto to become more like the European urban city fabric defined by mid-rise buildings.




2010 Midrise Building Performance Standards - City of Toronto



While planning policy has accommodated for missing middle densification, the reality is that very little has since been built.10 An effort has been made to revise land use and zoning restrictions, but the construction of mid-rise buildings remains subject to many of the same lengthy development approval processes, municipal fees, and building codes as much taller high-rise projects, thereby making them less efficient and competitive to build.11 

 

“My colleagues, we like mid-rise work,” said architect Richard Witt, principal at Toronto’s Quadrangle. “It’s interesting; it’s less formulaic, so you often get more interesting buildings. But the economics of it don’t work for anybody. Almost every client that’s done them has never done another one.” 12



Eb Zeidler (1926-2022) was one of Toronto’s most renowned architects. Born in Germany and educated at the Bauhaus, Zeidler immigrated to Canada in 1951 and designed many of the landmark buildings that define the city: the Eton Center; Ontario Place; the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto; as well as Sick Kids and Princess Margaret Hospital.13 In 1996, Zeidler wrote an essay entitled ‘Main Streets Initiative Handicapped by Building Codes,’ for the book A Practitioner’s Guide to Urban Densification, in which he presents the problem of the building code requirement for two exit stairs and how this makes it very difficult to build mid-rise buildings as envisioned by the planning policy.14 The building typology of five to six-storey apartment buildings usually involves a single shared central stair, accessed directly from the street with typically two to four dwelling units per floor. However, because the Ontario Building Code requires two means of egress, mid-rise buildings in Toronto are designed with two exit stairs connected by a common corridor.  The result is that mid-rise construction only proves feasible on larger sites where around ten or more units can fit within a typical floor plan to achieve an efficient floor area ratio. Zeidler explains that “this appears to be a reasonable precaution for life safety. However, the life safety of this single stair type in Europe has been equal to, if not better than ours,” due to the fact that the single stair scheme is shared between fewer units.15 By changing the code requirement for two exit stairs, apartment buildings of midrise height could be designed around a single common stair. For instance, a point-access block, the dominant housing typology in dense urban contexts like Berlin, Paris, or Barcelona, is currently not permitted in Canada.


"The two-stair plan entrenched in our building codes should be eliminated, to give us the incentive to rebuild our main streets with residential/commercial buildings that are in scale with the streets."16



In February 2019, the Housing Affordability Task Group of the Ontario Association of Architects issued a report with the objective of “identifying key design and planning elements to address housing affordability, including building form, construction methods, location and municipal planning.”17 The document, prepared by Toronto-based SvN Architects + Planners, is a comprehensive summary of the issues facing housing affordability and presents solutions divided into three categories: Goal A to increase housing supply; Goal B to make housing financially attainable; and Goal C to address the urgency. Goal B proposes that “in addition to revising current municipal land use regulations and zoning permissions, the Ontario Building Code should be revised to remove regulatory hurdles in order to reduce construction costs. Example: create an alternative means of achieving Ontario Building Code compliance to permit a four-storey building with a single exit. This would require oversight by a licensed architect.”18 In alignment with Eb Zeidler’s argument made more than two decades ago, this report again raises the need for a code revision, while also associating the issue of two means of egress with the current housing affordability crisis.






Fire safety codes vary between jurisdictions, comprising different rules dependent on criteria such as building height, number of exits, exit widths, travel distance, construction combustibility, passive protection measures, refuge areas, elevators and sprinkler systems. When comparing Canada to the United Kingdom, these rules are very different. The UK does not establish a maximum building height for apartment buildings with a single exit stair. Tall r esidential buildings are designed with a stay-in-place firefighting strategy as opposed to immediate evacuation, and regardless of building height, only horizontal travel distance and maximum occupancy load per floor restrict single stair designs, resulting in many tall buildings with a single exit stair.19 In 2017, one such building, the Grenfell tower, was engulfed by the deadliest residential fire in the United Kingdom since the Second World War and cost the lives of 72 people.20 Subsequent inquiry determined that the negligent use of a combustible cladding system caused the rapid spread of the fire up the building exterior. The tower consisted of a 24-storey concrete structure with a single central exit stair, for which the shelter-in-place evacuation policy was sustained for more than 80 minutes before a general evacuation was ordered.21 While the lack of a second means of egress certainly contributed to the number of deaths, the 67 meter tall Grenfell tower far exceeds the scale of buildings discussed in this paper, which proposes a building code change to allow for a single exit stair only in mid-rise apartment buildings.

In Australia, fire safety requirements of the building code increase with building heights exceeding 25 meters, equivalent to the maximum vertical extent of aerial apparatus (ladder truck) access. Buildings of no more than three storeys can have a single unprotected (combustible construction) escape path and short travel distances, while buildings over three storeys but under 25 metres require a protected stair (non-combustible construction) and are governed by a maximum travel distance of 60 meters. Only buildings of more than 25 meters in height require two means of egress.22
 

“Larger buildings reflect economies of scale in multifamily construction. As land costs increase, developers need to fit more housing units on a single land parcel. The costs of design, regulation, and operations don’t vary much by building size, so larger buildings allow developers to spread these fixed costs over more apartments. As one developer put it: From an operations standpoint, it costs almost as much for us to operate a 30-40 unit building as it does a 100-unit building, so we are looking for sites that can accommodate larger projects.” 23
 


Toronto Canary District - Image Courtesy Conrad Speckert



In advance of the 2015 Pan American Games, the City of Toronto opened up 80 acres of former industrial land known as the West Don Lands Redevelopment or Canary District, to serve initially as Athletes Village and thereafter as “vibrant 21st century neighbourhood” of mid-rise housing.24 The precinct policy and urban plan for the neighbourhood follows many of the principles of the Mid-rise Performance Standards to produce large perimeter block buildings of 10 to 15 storeys, averaging more than 100 residential units each.25 The projects consist predominantly of either courtyard or L-shape massing schemes containing deep, standardized, single-orientation units arranged along long double-loaded corridors. While the building code specifies a maximum dead end condition of 6 meters (OBC 3.3.1.9.9), the maximum travel distance between exit stairs is 45 meters (OBC 3.3.1.4.4), creating extremely long, narrow and artificially lit corridors to reach a central elevator core. These elevators open to a shared residential lobby and single controlled building entrance, beside which separate townhouses and retail units are added to retain a visual connection and pedestrian dialogue with the perimeter street. It is a circulatory system designed for maximum floor area efficiency, defined by the ubiquitous double-loaded corridor as result of the required two means of egress.26 Were the building code to allow for a single means of egress, such mid-rise housing could be built with several separate stair and elevator cores accessed directly from the street, reducing the number of apartments sharing an exit and avoiding the misery of the double-loaded corridor.



“In dense environments across much of America, urban homes are stacked and tied together by a framework of systems that meet specific functions within tight efficiency requirements. These internal systems allow for humans to make their way from the public street to their dwellings, often hundreds of feet off the ground with ease and comfort. They also allow for mail to be delivered, trash to be removed, and water, air and electricity to service each home. And in all but a few examples, these functions are gauged by their built efficiency: what arrangement allows for the maximum amount of rentable area with the minimum amount of supporting space. In other words, how can a building make apartments as large as possible while meeting the minimum code and engineering standards to support their occupancy. To meet these ends, the connective tissue to access American urban dwellings has leaned heavily on the implementation of the double-loaded corridor. While not initially recognizable by name, the double-loaded corridor is spatially ubiquitous. Uniformly 5 feet wide with two rows of 26-30 foot deep dwellings flanking each side, these arrangements maintain a uniform height, material and direction. Their often lengthy procession is centered on an elevator core and capped by two egress stairs; a case study in anti-human engineering.” 27



383 Sorauren is a ten-storey mid-rise development in the Roncesvalles neighbourhood of Toronto consisting of 145 residential units designed by Peter Clewes of architectsAlliance. The design has won several awards for the use of fine masonry detailing to fit with the surrounding context of heritage industrial buildings and has been deemed an example of best practices for the design of mid-rise buildings.28 The plan consists of very deep, single orientation units accessed off an efficient double-loaded corridor with two exit stairs placed at opposite ends, well within dead-end and travel distance limits. 383 Sorauren is described here not with the intention of being critiqued, but to demonstrate the resulting building form and scale when dealing with the requirement for two means of egress. The architect’s website also categorizes projects by building size from small to extra-large – this 12,500 square meter project is deemed as small - which speaks to both the portfolio of the architect as well as the minimum building scale viable for mid-rise residential development in Toronto.29 
 







“Where our current system allows new development, it favours bigness: big plans, big sites, big buildings, big capital, and big billings for planners and lawyers who know how to navigate the maze of regulation and consultation that governments have put in place. The city – government and entrepreneurs alike – should be able to build new housing at every scale in every area. Right now, we cannot.” 30



Montreal is defined by a dense residential fabric of so-called ‘plex’ or ‘superposed’ apartments, whose exterior stair strategy is not allowed in Toronto.31 These wood-frame apartment buildings are rowhouses of triplex, four-plex and six-plex units usually three or four storeys tall, in which an exterior staircase provides each unit with its own separate entrance from the exterior and a spiral stair at the back provides the required second means of egress. The resulting density of staircases along the façade, and generous landings occupied as front porches, constitute a vernacular architecture distinct to Montreal.32 It is a housing typology that developed out of necessity to house a growing population of working class migrants in the 19th century, and as Toronto faces similar growth in this century, such an efficient typology of ‘missing middle’ construction is forbidden by the building code. Despite each dwelling having its own entrance, the code categorizes such ‘superposed’ apartments as multi-unit buildings, subject to more stringent fire safety rules and also not permitting spiral stairs or winders to count as the second exit.33
 

“Increasing the maximum building height in neighbourhoods from three to four storeys can increase average densities by up to 35 percent.” 34






The ‘Bremer Punkt’, designed by Lin Architects + Urbanists, is a pilot project for urban densification in Bremen, Germany commissioned by the local housing association to address an “increasing housing shortage and a growing demand for affordable housing.”35 The design was included in the OAA’s Housing Affordability in Growing Areas report as a case study for urban densification.36 The first of these buildings, built in 2017, are four-storey apartment blocks made of prefabricated, panelized wood construction with a single means of egress. Each building occupies a footprint of 13.35 by 13.35 meters and is 14 meters in height, almost perfect cubes, containing anywhere from 4 to 11 dwellings depending on configuration.37 The defining difference between the two buildings is the placement of the stair and elevator core, either internalized centrally or exteriorized on the northern side of the building. Without the unit type standardization arising from a corridor connecting two means of egress, configurations can vary from studios of 30 square meters up to five bedroom units of 138 square meters, each benefiting from a corner condition and a shallow unit depth, thus avoiding the dark ‘den’ spaces common to mid-rise construction in Toronto. Alex Bozikovic, the architecture critic for the Globe and Mail newspaper and co-editor of the book House Divided: How the Missing Middle Can Solve Toronto’s Affordability Crisis, dedicates an entire chapter of the book to the ‘Bremer Punkt’ - explaining in the context of Toronto’s residential detached neighbourhoods that “in urban design terms, it would be defensible; if you built a ‘Bremer Punkt’ building here, it would have a comparable footprint to the house that’s here now. It would be no taller than the neighbouring apartment buildings. To a casual observer, it wouldn’t look dramatically different in scale from the existing houses.”38
 




383 Sorauren, one of the best recent mid-rise projects in Toronto, demonstrates the work that is presently viable in the best possible light. However, the reality is that this scale of development is deemed extremely small for Toronto’s market and serves as reminder that the smaller scale of, for instance the ‘Bremer Punkt’, remains unbuildable in this city due to the requirement for two means of egress. It is also important to note that while there are countless buildings in other countries and cities with one means of egress, many non-conforming buildings in Toronto today were built with a single exit before the building code started requiring two.
 


“Like most North American cities, Toronto has a history of incremental development that reflects growth patterns and population shifts. Take a walk through any older neighbourhood and you will see a diversity of housing stock: detached houses, duplexes, triplexes, walk-up apartments, rooming houses, small apartment buildings (fewer than eight to ten storeys), apartments above shops, laneway housing, coach houses, loft apartments in converted warehouses, multi-generational family housing, and everything in between. It is a perfect mix of housing types that organically grew out of the demands of people moving into the city. Yet the majority of this stock was built before Toronto’s zoning regulations came into effect in 1952. Paradoxically, much of what we love about the older parts of Toronto would not be allowed under current regulations.” 39



Before pursuing a building code change and attempting to increase the supply of mid-rise housing, resistance to such change must first be identified. In North America, a cultural resistance to apartment buildings remains deeply embedded in so-called ‘NIMBY-ism’ (Not In My Back Yard-ism).40 Such stigma can be traced directly to the overcrowded tenements of the industrial revolution or the perceived failure of social housing policies and is embedded within a resistance that preserves the status quo in Toronto’s residential detached neighbourhoods and is likely to proclaim an exemption from the requirement for two means of egress as recklessly dangerous, arguing against a change intended to address housing affordability and densification.
 

Building code requirements for means of egress are closely tied to firefighting practices, and just as the building code has evolved differently between jurisdictions, so to have firefighting practices. Though firefighting operations in Europe and North America share much in common, the differences in the design and tasking of aerial apparatus (ladder trucks) are a direct result of differences in evacuation and rescue practice.41 Aerial apparatus in Europe are used primarily as a rescue ladder with “a basket or small platform that can take firefighters up and victims down,” whereas North American aerial apparatus are equipped with pumps and water tanks and focused more on water flow and fire suppression.42 Fire truck manufacturers explain that the differences in streets widths as well as the height of buildings also require “smaller, more compact aerials and more articulating platforms in Europe than we use in the U.S.” 43 Means of egress therefore must be understood within the context of North American firefighting, such that additional life safety measures like increased fire resistance ratings on door and wall assemblies can be mandated for a single stair design rather than making changes to local firefighting and evacuation practices.


The conflicting priorities of planning departments with other bureaucratic institutions is an additional form of resistance, in which the technocratic approach of using empirical evidence fails to produce consensus. The example of street building practices in Toronto explained by Prof. Paul Hess at the University of Toronto, describes how “planning and other bureaucratic units within the urban bureaucracy such as fire departments often make competing or even contradictory safety claims. Pedestrian planners, for example, argue that narrow streets will reduce traffic speeds and the severity of pedestrian collisions, while fire department planners argue they will slow critical response times to fire or medical emergencies. These competing claims on safety are usually unable to be settled based on empirical evidence.” 44 Such a predicament is precisely the type of problem presented by two means of egress, for which more or superior empirical evidence is insufficient to address inherently competing value systems between authorities.45 Hess explains the dilemma of this ‘wicked problem’ further with the example of elected decision makers, who “may give less weight to the broad but relatively weak technical knowledge of planners, compared to the narrower, but more developed technical knowledge of engineers particularly as this is often directly connected to safety concerns and issues of legal liability. This inclusion or exclusion of actors and the differential valuing of viewpoints and types of knowledge in decision making processes narrows potential outcomes and sustains existing practices.” 46


Building codes are by historical necessity unyielding, the result of catastrophic fires in major cities at the turn of the 20th century and an urgent need for regulation of construction practices within rapidly growing urban populations.47 The introduction of two means of egress was a decisive and understandable requirement within the context of an industry dominated by combustible wood-frame construction and remains in place today as undisputed regulatory permanence.48 However building codes do evolve to address emerging issues. Allowing mass timber construction at increasing heights to combat the embodied carbon of construction is proof that the governing assumptions on fire safety can be revised and adapted to new realities. The Covid-19 epidemic has exposed the risks inherent to high traffic areas and poor ventilation in buildings, issues which a single means of egress directly addresses by reducing the number of units sharing an exit and making it easier to produce cross-ventilated unit layouts. 
 

“In the last century or two of social disruption, we were tempted by an excess of faith in the machine to do everything by means of it. We were like children left alone with a paint brush who applied it impartially to unpainted wood, to varnished furniture, to the tablecloth, to his toys, and to his own face. When with increased knowledge and judgment, we discover that some of those uses are inappropriate, that others are redundant, and that others are inefficient substitutes for a more vital adjustment, we will contract the machine to those areas in which it serves directly as an instrument of human purpose.” 49

 

The building code should not prohibit the construction of single stair buildings, but rather regulate the conditions in which it is acceptable. What additional life safety measures could be proposed for single stair apartment buildings to meet the performative life safety and risk assumptions of the current code?


The intention is to raise this question to architects, as well as planners, developers and fire code engineers to reconsider the building code requirement for two means of egress, recognizing that Canada has the most severe building height restriction for single exits, and that this is a significant obstacle to building the much-needed ‘missing middle’ of housing. The purpose of this paper has not been to outline the specific terms of a building code change, as this will require considerable further study and consultation well beyond the scope of the paper, but rather to delve into the wicked problem of the second egress, and thereby offer a starting point for further investigation to produce a code change.








[1] Building Codes - Guides Online Library. National Research Council Canada. Online.

[2] Zeidler, E. (1996). Main Streets Initiative Handicapped by Building Codes. In J. Emeneau (ed.), A Practitioners Guide to Urban Intensification. Toronto: Canadian Urban Institute.

[3] Hume, C. (2004, January 22). Stairway to a better Toronto, Interview with Eb Zeidler. Toronto, Toronto Star. Online. See original article here.

[4] Bozikovic, A. et al. (2019). House Divided: how the missing middle will solve Toronto's affordability crisis. Toronto: Coach House Books.

[5] excluding roads and park land - Meslin, G. (2017). The Yellowbelt. mapTO. Online.

[6] Vaughan, A. (2019). Radical Typologies. In Bozikovic, A. et al. (Ed.) House Divided. Toronto: Coach House Books.

[7] Bozikovic, A. et al. (2019). House Divided.

[8] City of Toronto. (2010). Mid-rise Building Performance Standards. Online.

[9] City of Toronto. (2010).

[10] Dingman, S. (2018, June 26). Toronto wants mid-rise housing, but can we afford it? The Globe and Mail. Online.

[11] Blais, P. (2003). Smart Development for Smart Growth. Issue Paper No. 6. Toronto: Neptis Foundation, 20-21.

[12] Dingman, S. (2018, June 26).

[13] McMordie, M. (2016). Eberhard Zeidler. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Online.

[14] Zeidler, E. (1996).

[15] Ibid.

[16] Hume, C. (2004, January 22).

[17] Canadian Architect. (2019, April 3). OAA releases report on addressing housing affordability through design. Online.

[18] SvN. (2019, February). Housing Affordability in Growing Urban Areas. Ontario Association of Architects. 10.

[19] Wallasch, K. et al. (2009). Single living. Fire & Risk Management (F&RM) Journal, 19.

[20] Kirkpatrick, D. (2017, June 24).  Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety. The New York Times.

[21] Apps, P. (2020, November 06). Grenfell Tower Inquiry Diary Week 17. InsideHousing. Online.

[22] Wu, S. (2001). The Fire Safety Design of Apartment Buildings. Fire Engineering Research Report 01/10. University of Canterbury School of Engineering. Online.

[23] Hoyt, H. (2020). More or Less? An Inquiry into Design and Construction Strategies for addressing Multifamily Housing Costs. Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University. 34.

[24] Waterfront Toronto. West Don Lands. Online.

[25] Bozikovic, A. (2015, July 9). How top Canadian architects designed a Pan Am district from scratch. The Globe and Mail. Online.

[26] Zimmermann, F. (2020). Breaking Up with the Double Loaded Corridor. 8. Online.

[27] Ibid.

[28] City of Toronto. (2017, September 13). Winners of the 2017 Toronto Urban Design Awards announced. Online.

[29]architectsAlliance. 383 Sorauren. Online.

[30] Bozikovic, A. et al. (2019). House Divided. 229.

[31] Bozikovic, A. (2019). House Divided. 21.

[32] Wegmann, J. (2006). What Happened to the Three-Decker?. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 21.

[33] Ibid, 93.

[34] Bozikovic, A. (2019). House Divided. 13.

[35] Gonzalez, M. (2017). Bremer Punkt / Lin Architects Urbanists. ArchDaily. Online.

[36] SvN. (2019, February). 61.

[37] Gonzalez, M. (2017).

[38] Bozikovic, A. (2019). House Divided. 190.

[39] Vaughan, A. (2019). Radical Typologies. In Bozikovic, A. et al. (Ed.) House Divided. Toronto: Coach House Books. 165.

[40] Bozikovic, A. (2019). House Divided.

[41] Petrillo, A. (2016). Fire Apparatus – United States vs. Europe. Fire Apparatus Magazine, Issue 6 (21). Online.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Hess, P. M. (2009). Avenues or arterials : the struggle to change street building practices in Toronto, Canada. Journal of Urban Design, 14.

[45] Daviter, F. (2019). Policy analysis in the face of complexity : What kind of knowledge to tackle wicked problems ? Public Policy and Administration, 34(1), 62-83.

[46] Hess, P. M. (2009).

[47] Barnett, J. (2011). How codes shape development in the United States, and why they should be changed. In S. Marshall (Ed.), Urban coding and planning (pp. 201-226). London : Routledge.

[48] Potter, G. (2008). Fire Commentary: European Firefighting Operations. Fire Enginering Magazine. Online.

[49] Quote from Lewis Mumford, 1963 - Moore, S. A., & Wilson, B. B. (2014). Questioning architectural judgment : the problem of codes in the United States. New York: Routledge.




Sources:

Apps, P. (2020, November 06). Grenfell Tower Inquiry Diary Week 17. InsideHousing. Online: https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/grenfell-tower-inquiry-diary-week-17-its-hard-to-make-a-note-about-this-because-we-are-not-clean-68477

architectsAlliance. 383 Sorauren. Online: https://architectsalliance.com/projects/small/383-sorauren

Barnett, J. (2011). How codes shape development in the United States, and why they should be changed. In S. Marshall (Ed.), Urban coding and planning (pp. 201-226). London : Routledge.

Blais, P. (2003). Smart Development for Smart Growth. Issue Paper No. 6. Toronto: Neptis Foundation.

Bozikovic, A. et al. (2019). House Divided: How the Missing Middle Can Solve Toronto’s Affordability Crisis. Toronto: Coach House Books.

Bozikovic, A. (2015, July 9). How top Canadian architects designed a Pan Am district from scratch. The Globe and Mail. Online. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/architecture/how-canadas-top-architects-designed-a-pan-am-district-from-scratch/article25385393/

Building Codes - Guides Online Library. National Research Council Canada. Online: http://codes-guides.nrc.ca/IA/05NBC/1.4.html

Bukowski, R. (2009). Emergency Egress from Buildings. NIST Technical Note 1623. U.S. Department of Commerce: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Online: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/TN/nbstechnicalnote1623.pdf

Canadian Architect. (2019, April 3). OAA releases report on addressing housing affordability through design. Online.
https://www.canadianarchitect.com/oaa-releases-report-on-addressing-housing-affordability-through-design/

Canadian Wood Council. (1996). Fire Safety Design in Buildings – A reference for applying the National Building Code of Canada fire safety requirements in building design. Online: https://cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/publications-FireSafetyDesign-s.pdf

City of Toronto. (2017, September 13). Winners of the 2017 Toronto Urban Design Awards announced. Online. https://www.toronto.ca/news/winners-of-the-2017-toronto-urban-design-awards-announced/

City of Toronto. (2010). Mid-rise Building Performance Standards. Online: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/design-guidelines/mid-rise-buildings/

Daviter, F. (2019). Policy analysis in the face of complexity : What kind of knowledge to tackle wicked problems ? Public Policy and Administration, 34(1), 62-83.

Dingman, S. (2018, June 26). Toronto wants mid-rise housing, but can we afford it? The Globe and Mail. Online: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/article-toronto-wants-mid-rise-housing-but-can-we-afford-it/

Gonzalez, M. (2017). Bremer Punkt / Lin Architects Urbanists. ArchDaily. Online. https://www.archdaily.com/870720/bremer-punkt-lin-architects-urbanists

Heckmann, O. et al. (2017). Floor Plan Manual of Housing, Fifth Revised and Expanded Edition. Basel: Birkhäuser Publishers.

Hess, P. M. (2009). Avenues or arterials : the struggle to change street building practices in Toronto, Canada. Journal of Urban Design, 14.

Hoyt, H. (2020). More or Less? An Inquiry into Design and Construction Strategies for addressing Multifamily Housing Costs. Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University. 34.

Hume, C. (2004, January 22). “Stairway to a better Toronto.” Interview with Eb Zeidler. Toronto Star. Online.

Kirkpatrick, D. (2017, June 24). Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety. The New York Times. Online: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html

McMordie, M. (2016). Eberhard Zeidler. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Online: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/eberhard-heinrich-zeidler

Meslin, G. (2017). The Yellowbelt. mapTO. Online: http://www.mapto.ca/maps/2017/3/4/the-yellow-belt

Moore, S. A., & Wilson, B. B. (2014). Questioning architectural judgment : the problem of codes in the United States. New York: Routledge.

Petrillo, A. (2016). Fire Apparatus – United States vs. Europe. Fire Apparatus Magazine, Issue 6 (21). Online. https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/2016/06/07/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/#gref

Potter, G. (2008). Fire Commentary: European Firefighting Operations. Fire Enginering Magazine. Online. https://www.fireengineering.com/2008/06/12/257023/fire-commentary-european-firefighting-operations/

SvN. (2019, February). Housing Affordability in Growing Urban Areas. Ontario Association of Architects. 10. https://oaa.on.ca/oaa/assets/images/bloaags/text/oaa_hatg_-_feb_11_-_final.pdf

Vermeulen, S. (2006). An Architecture of Daily Life: the continuing evolution of Toronto’s residential fabric. Unpublished Master of Architecture Thesis. University of Waterloo.

Wallasch, K. et al. (2009). Single living. Fire & Risk Management (F&RM) Journal, 19.

Waterfront Toronto. West Don Lands. Online. https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/portal/waterfront/Home/waterfronthome/precincts/west-don-lands

Wegmann, J. (2006). What Happened to the Three-Decker? Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 21. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/37424/123191174-MIT.pdf

Wu, S. (2001). The Fire Safety Design of Apartment Buildings. Fire Engineering Research Report 01/10. University of Canterbury School of Engineering. Online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35470098.pdf

Zeidler, E. (1996). Main Streets Initiative Handicapped by Building Codes. In J. Emeneau (ed.), A Practitioners Guide to Urban Intensification. Toronto: Canadian Urban Institute.

Zimmerman, F. (2010). Breaking Up with the Double Loaded Corridor: A Study of Progressive Housing Design and it’s Influence on Social Networks. Online: https://frankzimmerman.net/Breaking-Up-with-the-Double-Loaded-Corridor