Cri de Coeur for Canada's Homes
CC #161—A birthday reflection on getting to affordable housing
A bit bruised and battered but still strong and free1
My City Conversations blog has generally limited itself to matters of planning and urban design, principally Canadian, about which I have some modest expertise and experience. As we approach our country’s 158th birthday, I offer some thoughts, some pleas for action about housing, specifically affordable housing, which is at or very near the top of most Canadians’ anxiety list.
Firstly (cold comfort) we are not alone. I monitor housing and urban design issues and solutions in what is generally called the Anglosphere—Canada, the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand—partly due to language laziness and partly due to the similarities in their democratic government. Despite the US’s apparent recent departure from democracy, and its republican rather than parliamentarian form of government, they have examples worthy of inclusion in a discussion about affordable housing. In fact, like with trade, Canada’s reliance on US approaches is pervasive and often harmful.2
In any given week at least one of these five countries, usually more, will have news coverage of affordable housing that might resonate in any of the other four countries—usually about high costs, long wait lists, low productivity, excessive bureaucracy, homelessness, etc. How could we have all arrived at this pass?
Despite the assertion by all levels of government that we just need to “build, baby, build”3 to create affordable housing, high volumes of housing production have not produced housing that is affordable4. Vancouver has the dubious distinction of the greatest housing construction volume in North America over the past 30 years together with the highest prices (usually second only to Hong Kong and Sydney, Australia among all world cities).
“What got us into this won't get us out of this.”5
I don’t have enough time or patience to argue about causes and who to blame—I’m a solutions guy, meaning I notice what works (or not) noticing but not dwelling on history or politics. Here are six prescriptions for more affordable housing:
Make land free or cheap: The tens of thousands of homes and apartments Canada designed and built in the decades after the second world war until the 1980s were mostly constructed on cheap crown or city land—other anglosphere countries had similar programmes. When cheap land became scarce, places like Vancouver leased land like False Creek South for strata, co-op and rental developments. This dramatically reduced land costs, making homes affordable. The only reason we don’t do that now is all levels of government want or need the highest land price they can get.
Manage construction material and system costs: My wife and I wear sweaters indoors in winter, open windows and use fans in summer. I get climate change, but building code-mandated energy efficiency has gone too far. Remember, the most energy efficient housing state is homelessness.
Manage construction labour costs: Government at all levels has been assuring us of more and better construction trades training for the entirety of my 50 year career. There is no reason not to target skilled construction trades people until we get our act together. More trained workers may result in reduced construction costs.
Manage Bureaucracy: I disagree with many who say reducing red tape will immediately reduce home rent or purchase prices—but it will eventually help. What reducing red tape will do is reduce the cost to citizens of unnecessary or duplicate municipal/ provincial/ federal interventions. As one example, Vancouver has 700 staff6 engaged in climate work, even though climate is a federal jurisdiction.
Manage home sizes: Until the 1970s in Canada, minimum home and room sizes as well as separations between homes were all managed by residential standards—if you didn’t meet or better the minimums you got no funding. When the federal government got out of housing in the 70s and 80s, standards were abandoned. Ever since we have witnessed a race to the bottom in homes, especially in rental and investor homes. We are now beginning to see empty for-sale and rental homes because they are unlivable. Bring back minimum standards.
Keeping heads above water: Currently in many Canadian cities, entry level teachers, nurses and firefighters7 can’t afford entry level homes. They will eventually move to where they can, even if that means another province or country. Rather than playing games with artificial ways to calculate rent or mortgage payment, establish 30% of these publicly available incomes as maximum outlays and don’t call anything more than those amounts affordable.
In Canada, governments at all levels are scarcely addressing these six foundational requirements for affordability. Please let me know if you see different. Hold their feet to the fire! Thanks for reading and Happy Birthday, Canada!
This post is just under 800 words, a bit more than the 3-5 minutes citizens are allowed when they speak to the current City Council, in their efforts to suppress democracy. If you appreciated it, share to your social media—Facebook seems to be blocking me— and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at
Brian Palmquist writes on the traditional, ancestral and unceded lands of the Musqueam people. He is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. City Conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 50-year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” A glutton for punishment, he recently started writing a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the places where we love to live. Some of its content may appear above.
The flag illustration is from the album cover The Great Canadian Two Four and the song Raise a Little Hell by Trooper.
The YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) movement to build more everywhere has its origins in southern California, and has been funded by tech billionaires branching into real estate speculation. It is most active in those low-cost Canadian cities, Vancouver and Toronto.
Attributed first to Martin Luther King and co-opted by many since, including most recently Canada’s current Prime Minister, Mark Carney.
There are as many definitions of affordable as there are politicians promising it. The most popular definition in Canada, which I agree with and have experienced, is spending no more than 30% of family income on shelter. There are also an increasing number of peer-reviewed economic studies debunking the notion that building more results in lower prices.
Goldsmith, Marshal, What Got You Here Won't Get You There
This is an estimate from several sources.The city itself does not release enough information to allow exact calculations.
These three professions are the poster children of affordability, although there are many other vocations and professions that are below the affordability threshold.
Well written, Brian.
One idea for the mix: I read of a scheme in Europe where owner-occupied homes are built on leased land. The cost of the land (which in Vancouver is possibly worth more than the building) is not included in the drastically reduced mortgage payment. The land belongs to equity funds and various tax incentives (such as deductions for depreciation) make it worth their participation.
I agree completely. Especially the assertion that more building does not mean lower prices. We have a reversed supply-demand equation it would seem. Build more supply, and suddenly you have prices going up! Well, as you said, who knows why that is, but it reminds me of the observation that when they widen and improve roads, the traffic may go faster but at the same time more cars appear as if by magic and the net result is no better and often worse. Here in Victoria there are high rises going up like mad, and nothing in those is cheap or affordable from what I see.
My public landlord here is planning to evict the families form our 14 unit townhouse complex (in a suburb) so they can put up two 6 storey towers. So much for the vaunted missing middle. Authorities love to cherry pick rationalizations for whatever it is they decide to do. Then, as you point out too, they are planning for the new buildings to be net-zero. Well, aren't they heroic. Building these affordable and net-zero energy apartments however, also requires the demolition of a whole lot of perfectly sound houses that are already affordable. Where does that carbon cost and long term life-cycle cost come in to this equation? Nowhere it seems. How convenient is that?
Our street is full of single family homes, a number of them with suites. We are between two nature parks as well, which makes the whole proposal an extreme example of inappropriate scale, massing, density, and an environmental insult to that and the neighbourhood. All this is justified by the fact that the main road at which we live has been designated as a density corridor. In a suburb, this is absurd. This is not an urban environment with all that that would entail.
Nobody here in these parts is without a vehicle. But the planners talk about walk able cities as if simply by building dense apartment blocks we will suddenly have the lifestyle of the Viennese or some such fantasy dream city. On it goes.
One solution is to make suites allowable everywhere. This should have been done decades ago, but in those days the planners and Councils were generally dead against it, because it would cheapen the neighbourhoods, I presume. Failure to allow densities to increase gradually have come back to haunt us. Now we have the province dictating laws that local governments used to be responsible for.
However, forcibly rezoning SF lots into 4 units is not an easy thing to achieve on the ground. It involves builders, plans, permits and so forth, a process that is far more complex than most home owners can undertake. Once again, over-reaction to compensate for previous bad plans. As you say on your first point, it all revolves around land costs. Land went up much faster than the cost of building here. We can build better and more efficiently, but if land remains unaffordable, then so will the buildings on that land be unaffordable.