
Given how nice it is outside right now, some of you may be forgetting that Canada does have winter. And it is largely because of winter that we are the biggest foreign buyer of homes in the state of Florida (and the US as a whole for that matter). In 2024, Canadians bought over $2.4 billion worth of homes in Florida. And between April 2023 and March 2024, it is estimated that Canadians accounted for nearly 25% of all foreign home sales in the state (this is according to the National Association of Realtors).
Because of this strong demand, I would imagine that many and perhaps even most Canadians would tell you that being allowed to buy a home in the US — or elsewhere in the world — is a nice freedom to have. (Although demand is waning because of the strong US dollar and because of the current geopolitical climate.)
If we flipped this around and asked Canadians whether foreigners should be allowed to buy homes in Canada, I suspect that we might get a different leaning. And that's why there is the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act (which is currently set to expire on January 1, 2027). This was and likely still is the politically popular thing to have in place.
Now, it could be the case that these two groups are mutually exclusive. In other words, the people who own homes outside of Canada (a small minority) do not overlap with the people who support a ban on foreign buyers (the majority). And so when looked at in aggregate, the majority of Canadians do in fact want this ban. That said, I would not be surprised if Canadians buy more homes abroad than foreigners buy homes in Canada, which would make our current policies, at the very least, mildly hypocritical.
Whatever the case may be, it is in the news this week that some of the largest builders in British Columbia have just sent a letter to our governments arguing that the foreign buyer ban and BC's foreign buyer tax need to be reconsidered — or modified to something that resembles Australia's model. (Australia restricts foreign ownership to newly constructed homes and pre-sales. Foreigners can't buy resales.) The letter was signed by 25 companies including developers like Amacon, Beedie, Strand Development, and Westbank.
At the very least, I think there's a strong argument to be made that pre-construction and new home sales should be exempt from the ban. Most people probably don't appreciate that developers rely on pre-sales to finance the construction of new homes. It is significantly more challenging for end users to buy in this same way given how long projects take. We can certainly have a conversation about whether this is the optimal financing approach, but it is the way things work today.
So my view is this: If foreign capital wants to finance new housing and help increase our overall housing supply, that's a good thing. Let's take their money and use it to build lots more homes for Canadians. With this approach, foreigners won't be competing for our existing housing stock and, over the longer term, it is likely that most of these pre-sales will end up as new rental supply or as a resale home for Canadians.
The alternative is building fewer new homes, waiting until there's a worse housing shortage, and then turning the industry back on to deliver new homes in 5-7 years.
Cover photo by Denys Kostyuchenko on Unsplash
The province of British Columbia made the following announcement this week:
The Province has updated the BCBC to remove the [building] code requirement for a second egress, or exit, stairwell per floor in buildings up to six storeys. This change will make it possible to build housing projects on smaller lots and in different configurations, while allowing more flexibility for multi-bedroom apartments, more density within areas of transit-oriented developments and the potential to improve energy efficiency in buildings. Previously, the BCBC called for at least two egress stairwells in buildings three storeys and higher.
This is meaningful progress. And BC is the leading the way in Canada. But from a global perspective, we are not leading the way. This is us catching up.
As part of this building code change, the province commissioned a report on single egress stair building designs. In this report, they looked at various jurisdictions from around the world:
Their non-exhaustive findings:
There are at least 30 jurisdictions with SES building design requirements that permit midrise buildings with a building height of at least 5 or 6 storeys. In addition, the Center for Building in North America (www.centerforbuilding.org) reports that 8 US states have passed legislation into law, or are reviewing possible options for doing so, to allow larger SES buildings when their Building Code is next revised. In most cases these revisions are intended to allow SES buildings of up to 6 storeys.
For example, Seattle already allows up to 6 storeys. Belgium, New Zealand, and Australia allow up to 9 storeys (driven by a maximum height in meters). And Finland allows up to 18 storeys, according to the report.
Though keep in mind that building codes are complicated and often have frustrating gray areas. There may be other requirements that need to be met in order to achieve these heights.
It's great to see BC making these moves. Now watch for other provinces to follow suit.
Point access blocks, which are also known as single-stair buildings, are getting a lot more attention here in Canada. And B.C. looks like it might be one of the first provinces to relax its building code. Here's an excerpt from a recent Globe and Mail article:
Canada’s building code, which provinces have generally gone along with, has required two staircases per apartment building since 1941. But B.C.’s Ministry of Housing last week published a research report outlining the optimal conditions for single staircases.
“We are definitely moving forward with this,” said Ravi Kahlon, the Housing Minister, who hopes to introduce the legislation allowing the change in the fall.
Mr. Kahlon said that the option of “single-egress” buildings, as they’re also called, will be confined to areas where there is professional fire services (as opposed to rural-style volunteer departments) and good water supply, as is the case in Seattle. That city has allowed single-stair buildings since 1974.
In this case, the proposed change is expected to be limited to six storey buildings that have no more than four apartments per floor. That still feels fairly limiting, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
I have been spending some time looking at the feasibility of small six-storey apartments (here in Toronto), and I can tell you that it's not easy to make the math work. You need to optimize, everything. Minor assumption changes can really blow up the model.
I don't think that this change will magically fix that. But it's still meaningful progress. And if we keep chipping away at this housing problem, we might actually get there.