Last month, we talked about how even "luxury" housing can improve overall housing affordability in a market. In that post, we spoke about a recent study that looked at the downstream effects of a new condominium tower in Honolulu. Today, let's look at Switzerland.
I stumbled upon this working paper on Twitter. The authors are Lukas Hauck and Frédéric Kluser, both from the University of Bern. In it, they look at the country-wide effects of new residential housing supply in Switzerland and, more specifically, the "moving chain" that new supply produces.
Moving chains work generally as follows:
A household moves into a newly constructed home
Their previous home becomes vacant
Another household moves into this vacant unit, leaving their previous home vacant
And the process continues, until someone breaks the chain (which can happen by way of a new household being formed or someone moving in from out of the market)
The authors found that these moving chains are relatively short in Switzerland. Approximately 75% of them terminate within three migration rounds. But this doesn't mean that these chains aren't critical for the market.
Importantly, they found that every new market-rate unit typically results in 0.75 moves for households with below-median incomes. So, that is 75 moves for every 100 new homes constructed.
The reason why new supply ends up also benefiting lower-income households is because there's a clear income and rent gradient across the moving chain:
New housing (migration round 1) is typically priced at the highest end of the market. This makes sense because we know that development happens on the margin. But by migration rounds 2 and 3, median rents fall off noticeably, creating housing opportunities for other people.
New market-rate housing is sometimes criticized for only serving one segment of the market. But once again, we see evidence that it helps to ease overall housing pressures. There are other indirect benefits that shouldn't be ignored.
Cover photo by Henrique Ferreira on Unsplash
Chart from "Country-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains."
One of the big housing trends that we have seen across North America over the last several years is the push to allow greater supply in low-rise neighbourhoods.
Here in Toronto, this has come through a well-known program called Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (or EHON), which I believe launched around 2020. But you can find countless similar programs in other cities.
Salt Lake City, for example, is currently looking at updating its single-family exclusive zoning to allow for "gentle infill opportunities" on smaller lots. The zones under consideration cover 77% of the land zoned for residential in SLC. And interestingly enough, this program is also called Expanding Housing Options.
It's not hard to notice that public sentiment in Canada toward immigration has shifted dramatically over the past few years. When I tweet something positive about immigration, I know full well that the comments will be overwhelmingly negative and searing (mind you, it's Twitter).
But this isn't just the case on social media. A 2025 survey by the Environics Institute and TMU showed that the majority of Canadians believe there's simply too much immigration. And a more recent survey by Research Co. found that almost half of Canadians — a number that is up 9% since July 2025 — believe immigration is having a mostly negative effect on the country.
While I can appreciate where this is coming from, I think it's important to keep in mind that immigrants in Canada account for approximately one-third of all business owners with paid staff. They help create jobs. And they represent the majority of business owners when it comes to sectors like restaurants, grocery stores, and truck transportation. In sectors like "computer systems design and services" it's roughly 50/50 between immigrants and Canadian-born citizens.
Some of Canada's most notable companies and brands have also been founded by immigrants: Shopify, BlackBerry, Aldo, Magna, Hakim Optical, Molson Brewery, and many others. And in the US, it is
Last month, we talked about how even "luxury" housing can improve overall housing affordability in a market. In that post, we spoke about a recent study that looked at the downstream effects of a new condominium tower in Honolulu. Today, let's look at Switzerland.
I stumbled upon this working paper on Twitter. The authors are Lukas Hauck and Frédéric Kluser, both from the University of Bern. In it, they look at the country-wide effects of new residential housing supply in Switzerland and, more specifically, the "moving chain" that new supply produces.
Moving chains work generally as follows:
A household moves into a newly constructed home
Their previous home becomes vacant
Another household moves into this vacant unit, leaving their previous home vacant
And the process continues, until someone breaks the chain (which can happen by way of a new household being formed or someone moving in from out of the market)
The authors found that these moving chains are relatively short in Switzerland. Approximately 75% of them terminate within three migration rounds. But this doesn't mean that these chains aren't critical for the market.
Importantly, they found that every new market-rate unit typically results in 0.75 moves for households with below-median incomes. So, that is 75 moves for every 100 new homes constructed.
The reason why new supply ends up also benefiting lower-income households is because there's a clear income and rent gradient across the moving chain:
New housing (migration round 1) is typically priced at the highest end of the market. This makes sense because we know that development happens on the margin. But by migration rounds 2 and 3, median rents fall off noticeably, creating housing opportunities for other people.
New market-rate housing is sometimes criticized for only serving one segment of the market. But once again, we see evidence that it helps to ease overall housing pressures. There are other indirect benefits that shouldn't be ignored.
Cover photo by Henrique Ferreira on Unsplash
Chart from "Country-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains."
One of the big housing trends that we have seen across North America over the last several years is the push to allow greater supply in low-rise neighbourhoods.
Here in Toronto, this has come through a well-known program called Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (or EHON), which I believe launched around 2020. But you can find countless similar programs in other cities.
Salt Lake City, for example, is currently looking at updating its single-family exclusive zoning to allow for "gentle infill opportunities" on smaller lots. The zones under consideration cover 77% of the land zoned for residential in SLC. And interestingly enough, this program is also called Expanding Housing Options.
It's not hard to notice that public sentiment in Canada toward immigration has shifted dramatically over the past few years. When I tweet something positive about immigration, I know full well that the comments will be overwhelmingly negative and searing (mind you, it's Twitter).
But this isn't just the case on social media. A 2025 survey by the Environics Institute and TMU showed that the majority of Canadians believe there's simply too much immigration. And a more recent survey by Research Co. found that almost half of Canadians — a number that is up 9% since July 2025 — believe immigration is having a mostly negative effect on the country.
While I can appreciate where this is coming from, I think it's important to keep in mind that immigrants in Canada account for approximately one-third of all business owners with paid staff. They help create jobs. And they represent the majority of business owners when it comes to sectors like restaurants, grocery stores, and truck transportation. In sectors like "computer systems design and services" it's roughly 50/50 between immigrants and Canadian-born citizens.
Some of Canada's most notable companies and brands have also been founded by immigrants: Shopify, BlackBerry, Aldo, Magna, Hakim Optical, Molson Brewery, and many others. And in the US, it is
In their case, they are proposing to create a new definition for "Small Lot Dwellings," which would, among other things, reduce the minimum lot area per dwelling to 2,000 sf, reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 2 to 1 per dwelling, and allow up to four homes per lot via fourplexes and townhomes.
One of the things that I found interesting about their proposed policies is that they seem to explicitly encourage "sideways" multiplexes and row houses like this:
This starts to tell you something about the scale of SLC's urban fabric, even though there are no dimensions on this conceptual site plan. These are big lots.
Despite sometimes having the same moniker, cities are responding to their urban contexts in different ways. SLC uses explicit density math: at least 2,000 sf of site area per dwelling. Whereas Toronto increasingly relies on built-form standards: here's the envelope you can build, if you can fit a fourplex within it (or a sixplex in certain wards), go for it. And don't worry about parking.
If Toronto mandated one parking space per dwelling unit, virtually no multiplexes would ever get built in the city. Our lot sizes simply don't allow for it. Moving away from the car is also the only way that Toronto will be able to continue to grow and scale up.
Despite these local nuances, the overall ambition remains the same. Low-rise neighbourhoods across North America are being asked to house more people on the same amount of land, and that's a positive step forward.
Cover photo by Ashton Bingham on Unsplash
Map and planning diagrams from Salt Lake City Planning Division
But let's consider three objections that I have heard.
The first is that immigration is good, but we stopped attracting the best and brightest. Fine; if that's the case, we should better optimize for attracting the world's top talent. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The second is that it's important to first stop the best and brightest who are already here from leaving. And I would agree that this is critical. The "brain drain" needs to be stemmed. But at the same time, these do not need to be mutually exclusive activities. In fact, it may be best to think of it as solving the same problem: increasing opportunities for everyone both attracts and retains talent.
Lastly, I hear some people talk about "cultural continuity." The argument is that economic prosperity isn't everything. We need to also think about our national identity and the value of our local customs. I believe wholeheartedly in a strong Canadian identity. I'm profoundly proud to be Canadian. But what, specifically, must be continued? What should be allowed to change?
Let's consider my favourite city in the world, Toronto.
For roughly a hundred years, Toronto was an intolerant and primarily Anglo-Protestant city. Should that still be the case today in the name of "continuity"? If so, it's likely I wouldn't have been born here. I was raised Catholic, I went to a French-speaking school, and my ethnic background is primarily Irish, French, and Chinese (via South America).
Would the Protestants of Toronto have accepted my kind? It's unlikely on three accounts. Catholics were a problem. A French school would have been viewed as a rebellious political statement. And the Chinese Exclusion Act may have precluded my bloodline before I was born. A little discontinuity has been good for me — and others.
Photo by Richard Hong on Unsplash
In their case, they are proposing to create a new definition for "Small Lot Dwellings," which would, among other things, reduce the minimum lot area per dwelling to 2,000 sf, reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 2 to 1 per dwelling, and allow up to four homes per lot via fourplexes and townhomes.
One of the things that I found interesting about their proposed policies is that they seem to explicitly encourage "sideways" multiplexes and row houses like this:
This starts to tell you something about the scale of SLC's urban fabric, even though there are no dimensions on this conceptual site plan. These are big lots.
Despite sometimes having the same moniker, cities are responding to their urban contexts in different ways. SLC uses explicit density math: at least 2,000 sf of site area per dwelling. Whereas Toronto increasingly relies on built-form standards: here's the envelope you can build, if you can fit a fourplex within it (or a sixplex in certain wards), go for it. And don't worry about parking.
If Toronto mandated one parking space per dwelling unit, virtually no multiplexes would ever get built in the city. Our lot sizes simply don't allow for it. Moving away from the car is also the only way that Toronto will be able to continue to grow and scale up.
Despite these local nuances, the overall ambition remains the same. Low-rise neighbourhoods across North America are being asked to house more people on the same amount of land, and that's a positive step forward.
Cover photo by Ashton Bingham on Unsplash
Map and planning diagrams from Salt Lake City Planning Division
But let's consider three objections that I have heard.
The first is that immigration is good, but we stopped attracting the best and brightest. Fine; if that's the case, we should better optimize for attracting the world's top talent. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The second is that it's important to first stop the best and brightest who are already here from leaving. And I would agree that this is critical. The "brain drain" needs to be stemmed. But at the same time, these do not need to be mutually exclusive activities. In fact, it may be best to think of it as solving the same problem: increasing opportunities for everyone both attracts and retains talent.
Lastly, I hear some people talk about "cultural continuity." The argument is that economic prosperity isn't everything. We need to also think about our national identity and the value of our local customs. I believe wholeheartedly in a strong Canadian identity. I'm profoundly proud to be Canadian. But what, specifically, must be continued? What should be allowed to change?
Let's consider my favourite city in the world, Toronto.
For roughly a hundred years, Toronto was an intolerant and primarily Anglo-Protestant city. Should that still be the case today in the name of "continuity"? If so, it's likely I wouldn't have been born here. I was raised Catholic, I went to a French-speaking school, and my ethnic background is primarily Irish, French, and Chinese (via South America).
Would the Protestants of Toronto have accepted my kind? It's unlikely on three accounts. Catholics were a problem. A French school would have been viewed as a rebellious political statement. And the Chinese Exclusion Act may have precluded my bloodline before I was born. A little discontinuity has been good for me — and others.
Photo by Richard Hong on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
