The vast majority of new purpose-built rental housing in Canada relies on CMHC-insured loans to make them financially feasible. In 2024, CMHC estimated that their construction financing programs backed an estimated 88% of new rental starts across the country.
But anyone in the industry will tell you that the terms in which these loans are made available to developers are constantly changing. And I think it's pretty clear that many of the changes being made are intended to push, maybe force, developers into building some percentage of affordable homes as part of their projects.
At the political narrative level, this makes sense: Canada needs more affordable housing. But it's important to remember that homes pegged to below-market rents are not financially feasible to build on their own. So, unless equivalent subsidies are being somehow provided, the remaining market-rate homes will be forced to shoulder the additional costs.
We talk about this a lot on the blog (see inclusionary zoning posts), and I don't see it as an equitable solution. But there's also the problem of it further choking off new housing supply. And my sense is that that's exactly what is happening. It's only getting harder to underwrite new rental housing — certainly in cities like Toronto.
This will have the opposite effect on overall affordability. It also increases the probability that my supply predictions will prove roughly correct. I can't see a world where new rental supply is able to step up and fill the gap being left by new condominiums, a large portion of which was serving as new rental housing.
Toronto is on a path toward a severe housing shortage, and it's very hard for the private sector to do much about it in the current market environment. When that will change remains to be seen.
The term "missing middle" is typically used to refer to a missing scale in our built environment. It is that middle scale of housing between low-rise and high-rise. But there's another way to think about it and that is in terms of the market that the housing is serving.
Over the last cycle, cities like Toronto saw a kind of "barbell" dynamic. Meaning, new supply tended to target the poles. It was delivering for young professionals and young couples on one end and for downsizers and wealthy retirees on the other. But what has been missing is new supply that targets the belly of the market. And by this I mean something like low-amenity, well-designed, mid-market homes.
Of course, there are good reasons for why this is the case. The cost structure of new developments makes it so that the only feasible way to underwrite new projects is to maximize rents through smaller suite sizes and copious amounts of amenities. It is not that developers don't want to do it any other way, it's that they generally can't.
This is the paradox underpinning Canada's housing crisis. Yes rents are softening and vacancies are rising right now, but it would still be right to say that we are in a crisis. And that's because it largely exists in a different segment of the market — the biggest one.
In my view, this is our great challenge and opportunity as we move through this downturn. And I would bet that once we unlock the right model(s), we will see just how pent-up the demand for housing is in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.
