The Missing Middle Initiative, which is a research group housed at the University of Ottawa's Institute for the Environment, just published this detailed report on Southern Ontario's housing affordability crisis.

As we know, things are not good: In 2005, 21 of 26 single-family house markets in Southern Ontario could have been classified as either affordable or deeply affordable for middle-class families, and none were unattainable.

Today, none of these markets can be considered affordable or deeply affordable, and 11 of them are now unattainable. In every single one of these markets, buyers should expect to pay 25% or more of their pre-tax income on mortgage payments.

Below is one of their charts showing the price-to-income ratios for single-family houses in various markets since 2005. Outside of the Greater Toronto Area, the turning point toward worsening affordability was generally in 2016, and the peak was in 2022.

Here's some historical context. Canadians who had mortgages in the late 70s and early 80s often like to talk about how crippling rates were back then. But interestingly enough, monthly payments — relative to wages — are actually worse today than they were during this high-rate period (according to the report).

This is partly because home prices were a lot lower back then and so high rates didn't have the same impact to mortgage payments. Instead, the two worst periods of time for affordability (payments relative to wages) were during the late 80s housing boom and then during/after the recent pandemic.

Following the real estate crash of the early 90s, monthly payments relative to wages declined along with home prices. And they didn't return to the same levels seen during the preceding boom until 2022 — some thirty years later.

The same thing is happening right now. This reset is naturally improving affordability. But it really should be viewed as an opportunity to course correct before the next cycle begins. MMI's report does a good job explaining that housing is objectively less affordable today than it was for prior generations.

Charts from the Missing Middle Initiative; cover photo by Victor Ballesteros on Unsplash

The other night, I went down a Parisian real estate rabbit hole on Twitter. And one of the things that kept coming up was this half joke: The biggest developer in Paris today is the mayor. The reason for this is that the city is targeting 40% of all homes to be public housing by 2035 (of which 30% will be social housing and 10% will be moderately affordable).

Supposedly this is to stem the steady outflow of people from the capital as a result of housing being too expensive. But it means that a lot of new public housing will need to be created. As of January 1, 2021, the official estimate was 260,563 "logements sociaux" in the capital, which translates into 22.4% of all principal residences.

To hit this 40% goal, the city is going to need to create somewhere around 140,000 new public housing dwellings between now and 2035. So how does it plan to do this? By being a developer, of course. A big part of the strategy seems to be to convert existing buildings (d'adapter l’existant). And to execute on this, the city is leveraging something known as "le droit de préemption."

The way it works is like a right of first refusal clause (ROFR), except that it's not something that was contractually negotiated between market participants, it's just the law. What it means is that if a property owner goes to sell their building and they receive an offer, the city has an automatic ROFR and can choose to buy the building at whatever that third party was willing to pay.

Over the last two years, the city has elected to do this 84 times and has spent over €1.1 billion, according to Business Immo. And since the beginning of this year, they've done it 9 times, spending about €67 million on the following properties:

For those of you who are visual learners like me, here's the first property on the list:

It's certainly ambitious.

But, for the most part, it does not create a lot of net new housing, even though the city is also aiming to buy office buildings, parking garages, and other non-residential buildings. APUR previously estimated that for every 1 unit of new public housing, 0.6 existing units are being demolished. So the most accurate way to think about this initiative is that it represents the socialization of Paris' housing stock into public hands.

This runs in contrast to what we've been talking about recently with cities like Minneapolis and Austin, who have instead added a lot of new market-rate housing in order to temper rents and increase affordability. Paris is reducing its stock of market-rate housing.

At the same time, the city also enacted new policy prohibiting homes that consume more than 450 kWh/m2 from being rented. This is intended to force landlords to renovate, but it will certainly have a further impact on supply, at least in the short term.

It's also worth noting that all of this is happening at a time when Paris' housing market is in broad decline (less transactions, higher days on market, lower prices, and so on). Like Toronto, it started around the middle of 2022. And it's something that Paris hadn't seen since the 2008 financial crisis.

Chart by CoStar via Business Immo; cover photo by Salomé Watel on Unsplash

I live in a condominium. I find it extremely desirable. I don't yearn to live anywhere else. And I think of it as my home. But there is of course truth to this Globe and Mail article:

Canadians, by and large, continue to think of condos and apartments as housing, not homes. That’s hardly surprising given the way Canada builds them: small units in tall towers clustered in downtown cores or near busy transit hubs. They’re the one- and two-bedrooms young people rent in their 20s (and, increasingly, their 30s). The starter homes. The initial landing spot for newcomers. But they are not desirable homes for two large swaths of the population. Young families need multiple bedrooms and proximity to parks and schools. Retirees looking to downsize often say they want to remain in the same neighbourhood. A dearth of higher-density homes for these two groups has dire consequences for cities.

The problem is twofold.

Our land use policies are too restrictive, though that is slowing starting to change for the better. And it is simply not economically feasible to build larger, family-sized apartments at any sort of meaningful scale. This is not a developer unwillingness problem, it is a math problem.

Toronto, for instance, would be far better off if we had European-scaled apartment buildings all across the city and a lot more family-friendly housing. I believe this to be true at least. But in order to achieve this, we need to get serious. This is not serious.

We need to dramatically reduce development charges and other government fees. We need to get rid of the site plan control process for smaller buildings. We need to remove required amenity areas (the city is the amenity for small-scale neighborhood apartments). And the list goes on.

So if anyone in government is reading this and is truly serious about building more affordable housing in this country, please give me a call. I will gladly come into your office and run you through a development pro forma so that you can see what it's going to take. We can fix housing.