My internet friend Bobby Fijan is one of the founders of a mission-driven company called The American Housing Corporation. It was founded in 2024. They opened their first factory in Austin in 2025, and they're now actively working on their first collection of modular homes.

The mission is both simple and awesome: The American middle class can no longer afford a family-oriented starter home in the cities they love. This has people leaving cities, abstaining from having kids, and forgoing economic opportunity.

To correct this, they're going back to what they refer to as "the original American urban home" — the rowhome. And they're working to perfect it through vertical integration and a modular approach where prefabricated components are built in a factory and then shipped flat-packed to the site.

They're obviously not the first company to try to reduce the cost of new housing through prefabrication, but they believe that total vertical integration will make them different. And boy, would I like to see them succeed.

If we truly want to bring down the cost of new housing, we need to (1) stop taxing it like we want less of it and (2) think of it in every possible way as a repeatable product and not as a custom prototype.

Good luck, team!

Photos from The American Housing Corporation

Benjamin Couillard is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto whose research looks at things like residential choice and housing supply. And in this recently published paper, he studies the causal effects of rising housing costs on fertility. Here's what he found when examining US Census Bureau data:

...rising [housing] costs since 1990 are responsible for 11% fewer children, 51% of the total fertility rate decline between the 2000s and 2010s, and 7 percentage points fewer young families in the 2010s. Policy counterfactuals indicate that a supply shift for large units generates 2.3 times more births than an equal-cost shift for small units. This analysis concludes that the supply of housing suitable for families can meaningfully contribute to demographic sustainability.

Intuitively, it makes sense that rational adults might consider where they would put a child if they had one, or had one more, and consider the cost of this incremental space. Housing is expensive in major urban centers. Perhaps it's no surprise that Canada, which is known for its broadly unaffordable housing, has fallen into the "ultra-low fertility" category.

But I think this fertility-housing relationship is an important one to call out when considering appropriate public policies. Housing is often viewed through the lens of what bad things will happen if we build it. That's why we do shadow studies, force stepbacks, charge development charges (impact fees), and the list goes on.

What is harder to grasp is what happens when we don't build new housing. Most — or at least many — seem to agree that not building enough housing hurts overall affordability. But what this study also demonstrates is that not building enough family-sized housing is bad for making babies!

This has all sorts of socio-economic repercussions, one of which is that a country now has to rely more heavily on immigration in order to offset a shrinking population base. It becomes a larger economic problem. When framed this way, it makes me wonder: why do we tax new family-sized homes the way we do?

An alternative approach to encourage more infill family housing might be to eliminate development charges, building permit fees, parkland fees, and as many other government fees as possible on all three-bedroom or larger homes. And the reason you would do this is because the economic and demographic cost of not building is even greater.

Based on the work of Couillard, we know at least one of the outcomes: more babies.

Cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash

Recently, I wrote about 4 predictions that I have for Toronto's laneways. And one of them is what I refer to as a "market inversion." What I mean by this is that I think we'll start to see the laneway side of lots become more desirable than their traditional street frontages.

Maybe it won't be a universal thing, but I definitely think we'll stop thinking about laneways as being the "rear" or "backside" of lots and just think of them as quieter and more intimate streets. Because here's the thing, as more and more laneway houses get built, we are, in a lot of cases, removing parking at the same time. And so generally speaking, as time goes on, our laneways are going to become even more pedestrian-oriented by default.

Now here's a built example.

Designed by Williamson Williamson, I think this house, called the Garden Laneway House, is immediately notable for two reasons. One, the overall design is beautiful, especially the exterior brickwork. I mean, wow:

And two, it is a 4-bedroom house for a family of five. In fact, what the family did is turn the front house into a duplex, creating three homes on a lot where previously there was only one. And from the looks of it, it was their preference to live in the laneway house and use the laneway as their front door.

This is exactly the sort of thing that I was getting at with my predictions post.

Photos/Plans: Scott Norsworthy & Williamson Williamson