A few weeks ago, Equitable Bank launched a new construction financing product for laneway homes and garden suites in Canada. Here is the announcement. This is generally good news. When we completed Mackay Laneway House back in 2021, the banks hadn't yet gotten their head around this housing type. I remember RBC getting tripped up on the fact that there were two detached dwellings on the same residential lot.

That said, there are some important conditions around this new mortgage product:

"The Laneway House Mortgage is offered on properties that are free and clear, or in combination with new or existing mortgages where Equitable Bank holds, or will hold, the first position."

In other words, they want no debt on the property or they want sufficient equity in the property -- but Equitable Bank needs to hold the mortgage. I suspect that most of the people who have built laneway and garden suites have done so by leveraging the equity in their main house; so I'm not sure how "innovative" this product will end being in practice. You'll also need to switch to Equitable Bank if you have your mortgage with another lender.

Still, if you're looking to build one of these homes -- and I continue to believe that they make a ton of sense both financially and from a city-building standpoint -- it wouldn't hurt to see what Equitable Bank can offer.

It is very disappointing to hear that Paul Calandra -- Ontario's new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- is talking about "use-it-or-lose-it" zoning policies and that mayors are coming out in support of it. This is a terrible idea.

On the surface, it may seem like this would force/incentivize developers to build more housing sooner. But what it fails to recognize is this: just because a developer wants to build, it doesn't mean that they are able to build.

This current market environment is a perfect example. It is likely that the Greater Toronto Area will see dozens of new condominium launches this fall. These are developers who will be spending millions of at-risk dollars to bring their projects to the market in the hopes of pre-selling homes and then obtaining construction financing.

However, it is highly probable that not all of these projects will actually start construction in the short-term. And if/when that happens, it will not be because these developers are just squatting on entitled land; it will be because they can't get financing. In other words, the market isn't there.

This will not be a good day for anybody. So I fail to see how it makes sense to penalize developers who happen to find themselves in this unfortunate situation. It's as if our only solution to the current housing crisis is to make it more expensive to build new housing.

For another post that I wrote on this topic, click here.

We have spoken about this topic -- of larger family-sized suites -- many times before on the blog. And my argument then, as it is now, is that the largest barrier is cost. We can talk about cultural biases (which I do think exist in North America) and, sure, we can talk about how to better design for families. But until we solve the problem of costs or until low-rise housing gets so prohibitively expensive that it tips the scales in favor of multi-family buildings, I'm not sure we're going to see a meaningful shift.

To be fair, it does appear that the number of families living in apartments and condominiums is increasing here in Toronto. My neighbor is one data point. However, broadly speaking, I don't think it's happening with the "larger family-sized suites" that most people imagine in their minds when they talk about this opportunity.

So how do we address this? There are a number of interesting ideas in the above Twitter thread that I would encourage you to check out. Ratcheting down or eliminating development charges (and other government levies) on larger suites is one of them. But what is obvious is that this is a challenging problem to solve. So the brutally honest answer is that I don't really know what will be most effective. But here are three potential places to start.

As-of-right mid-rise buildings

Remove the barriers to building more mid-rise. One irony of mid-rise buildings is that they are probably the most desirable form of multi-family housing and yet they're the most expensive to build. A lot of this has to do with construction costs and other unavoidable diseconomies of scale, but there are other things we can do. In my view, we should target to make all mid-rise buildings fully as-of-right. This means no rezoning costs, no community meetings, and overall simpler designs. Instead, the rough process should be: buy site, work on permit drawings, and start marketing new homes.

Growth pays for as much as possible

Please watch this short 1-minute video:

This is also something that we talk a lot about on this blog. But most people outside of the industry don't think of it in this way, or they don't care. The mantra is that "growth pays for growth", which obviously sounds good. Tax new housing based on its impacts. But in reality this is not what's happening. What is happening is that "growth pays for as much as possible as long as new home prices keep rising." And it persists partially because nobody except evil developers see these large bills. But if we really want to make new housing more affordable and if we really want to encourage more families in new multi-family buildings, then we need a more equitable solution.

Financing new family-sized homes

The way we finance new homes impacts the kind of housing that gets built. Here in Toronto, new condominium projects generally require a certain percentage of pre-sales, because construction lenders want as much certainty as possible that they will get their money back upon completion. In theory, it also reduces the chance of overbuilding because you've pre-sold most/all of the homes. So there are obvious benefits to this approach. However, the problem is that you need people to now buy in advance. And oftentimes, the people buying early aren't families who expect to need 3 bedrooms in 5.2 years. Should there be another financing solution for larger homes?

Once again, these are just three potential places to start. But I think they're all critically important. If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please leave them in comment section below.

A few weeks ago, Equitable Bank launched a new construction financing product for laneway homes and garden suites in Canada. Here is the announcement. This is generally good news. When we completed Mackay Laneway House back in 2021, the banks hadn't yet gotten their head around this housing type. I remember RBC getting tripped up on the fact that there were two detached dwellings on the same residential lot.

That said, there are some important conditions around this new mortgage product:

"The Laneway House Mortgage is offered on properties that are free and clear, or in combination with new or existing mortgages where Equitable Bank holds, or will hold, the first position."

In other words, they want no debt on the property or they want sufficient equity in the property -- but Equitable Bank needs to hold the mortgage. I suspect that most of the people who have built laneway and garden suites have done so by leveraging the equity in their main house; so I'm not sure how "innovative" this product will end being in practice. You'll also need to switch to Equitable Bank if you have your mortgage with another lender.

Still, if you're looking to build one of these homes -- and I continue to believe that they make a ton of sense both financially and from a city-building standpoint -- it wouldn't hurt to see what Equitable Bank can offer.

It is very disappointing to hear that Paul Calandra -- Ontario's new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- is talking about "use-it-or-lose-it" zoning policies and that mayors are coming out in support of it. This is a terrible idea.

On the surface, it may seem like this would force/incentivize developers to build more housing sooner. But what it fails to recognize is this: just because a developer wants to build, it doesn't mean that they are able to build.

This current market environment is a perfect example. It is likely that the Greater Toronto Area will see dozens of new condominium launches this fall. These are developers who will be spending millions of at-risk dollars to bring their projects to the market in the hopes of pre-selling homes and then obtaining construction financing.

However, it is highly probable that not all of these projects will actually start construction in the short-term. And if/when that happens, it will not be because these developers are just squatting on entitled land; it will be because they can't get financing. In other words, the market isn't there.

This will not be a good day for anybody. So I fail to see how it makes sense to penalize developers who happen to find themselves in this unfortunate situation. It's as if our only solution to the current housing crisis is to make it more expensive to build new housing.

For another post that I wrote on this topic, click here.

We have spoken about this topic -- of larger family-sized suites -- many times before on the blog. And my argument then, as it is now, is that the largest barrier is cost. We can talk about cultural biases (which I do think exist in North America) and, sure, we can talk about how to better design for families. But until we solve the problem of costs or until low-rise housing gets so prohibitively expensive that it tips the scales in favor of multi-family buildings, I'm not sure we're going to see a meaningful shift.

To be fair, it does appear that the number of families living in apartments and condominiums is increasing here in Toronto. My neighbor is one data point. However, broadly speaking, I don't think it's happening with the "larger family-sized suites" that most people imagine in their minds when they talk about this opportunity.

So how do we address this? There are a number of interesting ideas in the above Twitter thread that I would encourage you to check out. Ratcheting down or eliminating development charges (and other government levies) on larger suites is one of them. But what is obvious is that this is a challenging problem to solve. So the brutally honest answer is that I don't really know what will be most effective. But here are three potential places to start.

As-of-right mid-rise buildings

Remove the barriers to building more mid-rise. One irony of mid-rise buildings is that they are probably the most desirable form of multi-family housing and yet they're the most expensive to build. A lot of this has to do with construction costs and other unavoidable diseconomies of scale, but there are other things we can do. In my view, we should target to make all mid-rise buildings fully as-of-right. This means no rezoning costs, no community meetings, and overall simpler designs. Instead, the rough process should be: buy site, work on permit drawings, and start marketing new homes.

Growth pays for as much as possible

Please watch this short 1-minute video:

This is also something that we talk a lot about on this blog. But most people outside of the industry don't think of it in this way, or they don't care. The mantra is that "growth pays for growth", which obviously sounds good. Tax new housing based on its impacts. But in reality this is not what's happening. What is happening is that "growth pays for as much as possible as long as new home prices keep rising." And it persists partially because nobody except evil developers see these large bills. But if we really want to make new housing more affordable and if we really want to encourage more families in new multi-family buildings, then we need a more equitable solution.

Financing new family-sized homes

The way we finance new homes impacts the kind of housing that gets built. Here in Toronto, new condominium projects generally require a certain percentage of pre-sales, because construction lenders want as much certainty as possible that they will get their money back upon completion. In theory, it also reduces the chance of overbuilding because you've pre-sold most/all of the homes. So there are obvious benefits to this approach. However, the problem is that you need people to now buy in advance. And oftentimes, the people buying early aren't families who expect to need 3 bedrooms in 5.2 years. Should there be another financing solution for larger homes?

Once again, these are just three potential places to start. But I think they're all critically important. If you have any other suggestions or ideas, please leave them in comment section below.