Subscribe
In Ontario, couples with children overwhelmingly live in ground-oriented ownership housing. This form of housing is still the majority for all other households (at least according to 2021 Census data), but apartment rentals make up a much larger share.
Given these figures, it is not surprising that the Missing Middle Initiative has found that family migration patterns within southern Ontario tend to correlate strongly (r = 0.71) with where ground-oriented ownership housing is being built, which largely means outside of the Greater Toronto Area.
This is an important finding if you're worried about Canadians not having enough babies. But this correlation doesn't tell us exactly what's going on. The data suggests that families with children have a clear preference for ground-oriented ownership — even if it means moving farther out — but what other options do they really have?
Three-bedroom apartments remain a relatively elusive housing type because demand is low. But as we have talked about, demand is a function of price, and multi-family buildings are more expensive to construct than low-rise housing. So how much of this perceived consumer preference for ground-oriented housing is actually just people driving until they qualify?
In other words, how many people are simply solving for X amount of space/bedrooms at Y price? And what would happen if we made large three-bedroom apartments in walkable transit-oriented communities the most affordable option? It still wouldn't be for everyone, but I bet that we would see demand adjust.
More importantly, it would give people options.
Charts from the Missing Middle Initiative; cover photo by Jason Ng on Unsplash
Here's an interesting figure from the Missing Middle Initiative showing the change in population of 0-4 year olds in Southern Ontario between 2016 and 2021:
What this shows is that the population of young children declined in the Greater Toronto Area and in Ottawa, but increased dramatically in areas further out, such as in Lanark County (outside of Ottawa) and Oxford County (between London and Hamilton). If you know what home prices are like in Southern Ontario, then this probably makes intuitive sense to you. Families are, as the old saying goes, "driving until they qualify."
But let's look at the data more closely. What the Missing Middle uncovered was that the metric most highly correlated with the population growth of children under the age of 5 was the increase in the supply of housing with three or more bedrooms. More specifically, though, it was highly correlated with an increase in the number of larger owner-occupied homes. Rental housing did not have the same correlation.
They go on to remind us that correlation is not causation, which is true. But regardless, there's a clear recipe here: If cities want to become more family-friendly, house more young children, and not lose them to exurban areas, then they need to figure out a way to unlock more 3-bedroom homes at price points that more families can afford.
Note: As is typical on this blog, I am using the term home to include all housing types, not just single-family housing. A home is not a housing type. It is simply a place where people, families, and households live permanently. Associating the term home with only single-family housing creates a cultural bias that I believe is suboptimal for cities.
I am of the strong opinion that, as a general rule, development charges should aim to capture the costs and impacts directly attributable to new development. This is why I prefer the term "impact fee" as opposed to "development charge." The latter makes it seem like a generic catch-all tax. But that's not the intent. The intent is that "growth pays for growth." At the highest level, this makes sense and sounds good. So with all the talk of lowering/eliminating DCs to help with housing affordability, I think a lot of people are rightly wondering: Is this actually feasible? What fees are actually needed to fund growth-related infrastructure? Let's talk about this today.
For reference, here are the development charge rates effective June 2024 in the City of Toronto.
Non-rental housing:
In Ontario, couples with children overwhelmingly live in ground-oriented ownership housing. This form of housing is still the majority for all other households (at least according to 2021 Census data), but apartment rentals make up a much larger share.
Given these figures, it is not surprising that the Missing Middle Initiative has found that family migration patterns within southern Ontario tend to correlate strongly (r = 0.71) with where ground-oriented ownership housing is being built, which largely means outside of the Greater Toronto Area.
This is an important finding if you're worried about Canadians not having enough babies. But this correlation doesn't tell us exactly what's going on. The data suggests that families with children have a clear preference for ground-oriented ownership — even if it means moving farther out — but what other options do they really have?
Three-bedroom apartments remain a relatively elusive housing type because demand is low. But as we have talked about, demand is a function of price, and multi-family buildings are more expensive to construct than low-rise housing. So how much of this perceived consumer preference for ground-oriented housing is actually just people driving until they qualify?
In other words, how many people are simply solving for X amount of space/bedrooms at Y price? And what would happen if we made large three-bedroom apartments in walkable transit-oriented communities the most affordable option? It still wouldn't be for everyone, but I bet that we would see demand adjust.
More importantly, it would give people options.
Charts from the Missing Middle Initiative; cover photo by Jason Ng on Unsplash
Here's an interesting figure from the Missing Middle Initiative showing the change in population of 0-4 year olds in Southern Ontario between 2016 and 2021:
What this shows is that the population of young children declined in the Greater Toronto Area and in Ottawa, but increased dramatically in areas further out, such as in Lanark County (outside of Ottawa) and Oxford County (between London and Hamilton). If you know what home prices are like in Southern Ontario, then this probably makes intuitive sense to you. Families are, as the old saying goes, "driving until they qualify."
But let's look at the data more closely. What the Missing Middle uncovered was that the metric most highly correlated with the population growth of children under the age of 5 was the increase in the supply of housing with three or more bedrooms. More specifically, though, it was highly correlated with an increase in the number of larger owner-occupied homes. Rental housing did not have the same correlation.
They go on to remind us that correlation is not causation, which is true. But regardless, there's a clear recipe here: If cities want to become more family-friendly, house more young children, and not lose them to exurban areas, then they need to figure out a way to unlock more 3-bedroom homes at price points that more families can afford.
Note: As is typical on this blog, I am using the term home to include all housing types, not just single-family housing. A home is not a housing type. It is simply a place where people, families, and households live permanently. Associating the term home with only single-family housing creates a cultural bias that I believe is suboptimal for cities.
I am of the strong opinion that, as a general rule, development charges should aim to capture the costs and impacts directly attributable to new development. This is why I prefer the term "impact fee" as opposed to "development charge." The latter makes it seem like a generic catch-all tax. But that's not the intent. The intent is that "growth pays for growth." At the highest level, this makes sense and sounds good. So with all the talk of lowering/eliminating DCs to help with housing affordability, I think a lot of people are rightly wondering: Is this actually feasible? What fees are actually needed to fund growth-related infrastructure? Let's talk about this today.
For reference, here are the development charge rates effective June 2024 in the City of Toronto.
Non-rental housing:
Rental housing:
In other words, if you were building 3-bedroom family-sized condominiums, the development charge would be $80,690 per home. And if you were building 3-bedroom family-sized rentals, the development charge would be $45,280 per home. But keep in mind that in addition to the above development charges, there are also other charges like the Community Benefit Contribution (Section 37), Parkland Dedication, Education Charges, Development Application Fees, HST, and so on.
Growing development charge reserve funds
Looking at just DCs, Ontario municipalities collected about $17.5 billion in development charge revenue over the last five years (according to the Missing Middle Initiative). But importantly, these same municipalities only spent $11.8 billion. The rest is sitting in DC reserve funds. Why is that? Well, part of this could be explained by timing. DCs are typically collected when a developer is issued their first building permit. But the costs associated with growth-related infrastructure may not happen at exactly the same time.
Except that these reserves have been growing. From 2010 to 2022, DC reserve funds across Ontario have increased from $2.6 billion to $10.7 billion (again, according to the Missing Middle Initiative). This is a 316% increase over 13 years. And in the case of Toronto — Ontario's largest city — reserves have grown 891% over the same period. This suggests that these charges aren't accurately tuned to actual impacts, because, in theory, these reserves should trend toward zero over long periods of time, as growth-related infrastructure costs are incurred.
Nexus between development charges and the impacts of new development
Let's get a little more specific. Over the last five years, DCs generated about $450 million for social services across Ontario. This includes things like long-term care, affordable housing, day cares, and public health; all of which are important and good things. But can all of these things be considered growth-related impacts? In other words, is it fair to say that because new housing got built, we now need more long-term care homes? I don't think so. Long-term care homes are certainly needed, but I don't think it's fair for new home buyers and renters to shoulder this cost.
Who is paying for the renaming of Dundas Square?
Let's consider another example. Back in 2014, Toronto City Council decided that Dundas Square should be renamed. I personally don't think this was at all necessary, but it got approved and the cost to do so was estimated at $335,000. At the time, it was also decided that this would be paid for through Section 37 funds as opposed to "taxpayer money." Section 37 of the Planning Act used to function in practice as "let's make a deal." It was a way for cities to extract money from developers in exchange for allowing more density. This has since been replaced by the Community Benefits Charge framework, but the intent is the same:
Section 37 of the Planning Act authorizes the City to adopt a community benefits charge (CBC) by-law and collect CBCs to pay for the capital costs of facilities, services and matters that are required to serve development and redevelopment. CBC funding will help support complete communities across Toronto.
In funding it in this way, the City of Toronto took a position. It basically said, "renaming Dundas Square is important to the city. We must do it. But we don't want all Torontonians to pay for it. We only want new home buyers and renters to pay for it." Because that's the effective outcome of using funds charged only to new developments. Is that fair? Once again, I don't think so. Because it's not reasonable to say that because new housing got built, it's now imperative that we rename Dundas Square. The two are unrelated matters.
By and large, this is the issue that many take with development charges. It doesn't appear to be "growth just paying for growth." It's growth paying for a lot of stuff. And it has a direct impact on housing affordability. In tomorrow's post, we'll expand on this last point and talk about what lowering/eliminating DCs could mean for apartment rents.
Rental housing:
In other words, if you were building 3-bedroom family-sized condominiums, the development charge would be $80,690 per home. And if you were building 3-bedroom family-sized rentals, the development charge would be $45,280 per home. But keep in mind that in addition to the above development charges, there are also other charges like the Community Benefit Contribution (Section 37), Parkland Dedication, Education Charges, Development Application Fees, HST, and so on.
Growing development charge reserve funds
Looking at just DCs, Ontario municipalities collected about $17.5 billion in development charge revenue over the last five years (according to the Missing Middle Initiative). But importantly, these same municipalities only spent $11.8 billion. The rest is sitting in DC reserve funds. Why is that? Well, part of this could be explained by timing. DCs are typically collected when a developer is issued their first building permit. But the costs associated with growth-related infrastructure may not happen at exactly the same time.
Except that these reserves have been growing. From 2010 to 2022, DC reserve funds across Ontario have increased from $2.6 billion to $10.7 billion (again, according to the Missing Middle Initiative). This is a 316% increase over 13 years. And in the case of Toronto — Ontario's largest city — reserves have grown 891% over the same period. This suggests that these charges aren't accurately tuned to actual impacts, because, in theory, these reserves should trend toward zero over long periods of time, as growth-related infrastructure costs are incurred.
Nexus between development charges and the impacts of new development
Let's get a little more specific. Over the last five years, DCs generated about $450 million for social services across Ontario. This includes things like long-term care, affordable housing, day cares, and public health; all of which are important and good things. But can all of these things be considered growth-related impacts? In other words, is it fair to say that because new housing got built, we now need more long-term care homes? I don't think so. Long-term care homes are certainly needed, but I don't think it's fair for new home buyers and renters to shoulder this cost.
Who is paying for the renaming of Dundas Square?
Let's consider another example. Back in 2014, Toronto City Council decided that Dundas Square should be renamed. I personally don't think this was at all necessary, but it got approved and the cost to do so was estimated at $335,000. At the time, it was also decided that this would be paid for through Section 37 funds as opposed to "taxpayer money." Section 37 of the Planning Act used to function in practice as "let's make a deal." It was a way for cities to extract money from developers in exchange for allowing more density. This has since been replaced by the Community Benefits Charge framework, but the intent is the same:
Section 37 of the Planning Act authorizes the City to adopt a community benefits charge (CBC) by-law and collect CBCs to pay for the capital costs of facilities, services and matters that are required to serve development and redevelopment. CBC funding will help support complete communities across Toronto.
In funding it in this way, the City of Toronto took a position. It basically said, "renaming Dundas Square is important to the city. We must do it. But we don't want all Torontonians to pay for it. We only want new home buyers and renters to pay for it." Because that's the effective outcome of using funds charged only to new developments. Is that fair? Once again, I don't think so. Because it's not reasonable to say that because new housing got built, it's now imperative that we rename Dundas Square. The two are unrelated matters.
By and large, this is the issue that many take with development charges. It doesn't appear to be "growth just paying for growth." It's growth paying for a lot of stuff. And it has a direct impact on housing affordability. In tomorrow's post, we'll expand on this last point and talk about what lowering/eliminating DCs could mean for apartment rents.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
