It seems like everyone is talking about housing these days. For many, it is in a state of crisis. But for others, it is a market doing exactly what it should be doing: . The crux of the housing problem is that it is both a basic and a .
Most housing debates largely ignore this . Those who oppose new developments and those who believe we need more housing both focus on numbers, design, zoning and density. These perspectives miss key questions about , against whom, and who is excluded.
Upzoning and affordability
In many neighbourhoods in Canada, zoning rules dictate that the only type of development permitted is the to replace it with a big one.
This has no net effect on supply and can dramatically raise prices. It’s not uncommon for , while the number of homes remains static.
As a result, there have been where only detached or semi-detached houses are permitted. Known as upzoning, this allows for taller buildings and more housing units, including triplexes, town houses or small apartments, often referred to as the “.”
There are many good reasons to do this. Zoning rules have historically restricted opportunities for . Older neighbourhoods in particular tend to have good transportation choices, but for low-income populations.
Increasing density in the city can curb sprawl at the periphery, which preserves valuable farmland. This was an important aspect in , to .
A , and have all eliminated single-family zoning. Although, in each case, the question of what to build (and for whom) has been left to the market.
While there are many good reasons to upzone, there is little research indicating that on its own, produces the types of housing cities need to tackle affordability problems.
There is also evidence to suggest upzoning can , further fuel speculation and lead to the .
Despite this, there is still a persistent belief that upzoning specifically, and increasing supply more broadly, is the key to solving the affordability crisis.
Supply and demand?
There is growing evidence to indicate that in Canada, , especially in the biggest cities and hottest property markets. Some of the biggest price increases on record have been in the last quarter, .
But we need to move beyond focusing purely on the number of new houses, and how this relates to population or household change. The answers to the housing problem are far more complex, and require a deeper understanding of what type of supply gets built, what does not and what is lost as cities grow and redevelop.
Reducing demand from speculators is key. In Ontario, . A recent survey found that . The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation . Even the Bank of Canada is now concerned about the role the commodification of housing is playing, and has noted how .
Therefore, simply adding supply isn’t the solution. Speculators both increase demand for housing, and shape the supply that gets built. Investors love small condos, so most new towers going up across our cities contain small studio and one-bedroom units. This does little to address demand for shelter, particularly for those on low- to moderate-incomes, or .
This fixation on uncritically adding new market-driven supply also ignores existing affordable housing that is lost when neighbourhoods gentrify, or are upzoned. Some of this occurs when , a process known as “.” My research team, working closely with the has been .
also contribute to this loss. This is a process where landlords evict tenants, renovate their units and rent them out at higher rates. As planning scholar Martine August has found, this is often carried out by large, who have been .
Decommodify housing
To make cities affordable, upzoning will need to consist primarily of new and other forms of ownership such as and rent-controlled apartments that are off limits to speculators.
Fortunately, there are many examples across Canada and beyond that treat housing as homes, not investments. Private developers do not hold a monopoly on adding supply. and offer possibilities to decommodify housing by taking it out of the speculative market in creative and sustainable ways.
Publicly owned land provides . It should not be sold to private developers, especially at , for a quick profit.
Changes in zoning also need to be accompanied by proactive policies to shape what gets built and for whom. Montréal has new rules stipulating that many developments need to consist of at least .
Other approaches include primary residency requirements for owner-occupied units to restrict investors, and incentives for purpose-built rentals. , Burnaby, B.C., has seen a .
To protect existing affordable housing, strong rent controls, including , also have an important role to play. Rent controls on vacant units were eliminated in Ontario in 1996; this creates an incentive for landlords to evict tenants, .
Other examples include rules in New Westminster, B.C., that . The City of Montréal also has the .
Housing for whom?
To make housing more affordable, we need to confront its roles as both shelter and commodity. Housing supply needs to grow with our population, but it must address need, and not investor demand. All levels of government can implement proactive policies to make existing and new housing affordable. The provincial and federal governments need to return to funding new, non-market housing, .
Solutions need to focus on decommodifing housing while supporting its role as a human right. That means that the rights of some to profit from housing will need to be curtailed so that everyone has the . have shown that leaving the question of supply to market forces, developers and speculators will add some new housing and make some people a tidy profit, but will do little to address the crisis facing a growing number of Canadians.
Brian Doucet receives funding from SSHRC and the Canada Research Chairs program. Some of his research is conducted in partnership with the Social Development Centre Waterloo Region. He has co-written reports on housing and mobility for local governments in Ontario.
