This is an important chart taken from this recent article by Steve Lafleur talking about the need for Canada to "bulk up." What it obviously shows is that housing completions and population growth have generally been diverging in Canada since the 1970s.

Back then, we were building about 200,000 homes a year and, today, we're building slightly under that. Of course, our population has also grown dramatically during this time period, as has the number of people who move to Canada each year. The result is that the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation estimates that we'll have a housing shortage of approximately 3.5 million homes by 2030.

But we already knew this. Big numbers are often thrown around in studies. I think the more important question is: How do we reconcile this massive shortage with the fact that, in cities like Toronto, we have lots of zoned land ready for the construction of new housing (but that isn't financially feasible) and lots of unsold homes that aren't selling right now?

Do we really have a shortage?

Well, Toronto is just one specific market, and I can't speak to all the dynamics playing out across the country and the world. But it strikes me that what's missing from the above chart, and this discussion in general, are considerations around (1) housing type and (2) affordability. And by type, I'm largely thinking about size, as it's closely linked to affordability.

If what we're building is too expensive for most people and unsuitable for their household needs, then yes, I guess that would mean we have a shortage of housing.

Cover photo by Matt Wang on Unsplash

Okay, so maybe this isn't an entirely definitive guide. But the intent is to make this post a kind of working post. As new ideas emerge (from my end or from your ends), I will endeavor to update it, so that maybe one day it will become a bit more definitive. I also think it's important to keep it a little crazy. Because housing affordability is clearly a tough problem to solve, so unless we start thinking differently and acting boldly, we may not get there.

Here goes.

• Encourage new housing at all scales (low, mid, high)

• "Upzone" all major streets and transit station areas

• Allow multi-unit dwellings in low-rise neighborhoods and ensure that any applicable codes and/or policies are not creating unnecessary obstacles to building at this scale

• Work to make the largest possible housing scale permissible on an as-of-right basis -- that is, remove the rezoning process wherever possible and allow builders to go right to a building permit (a lengthy rezoning process can cost millions)

• Avoid the use of inclusionary zoning policies that do not provide an equal offset or subsidy (such as a density bonus)

• Ensure that any development charges and levies are commensurate with the burdens created by new housing and that existing property owners are funding their fair share through property taxes

• Identify the areas that are NOT seeing new housing and then create incentives to make development feasible

• Search for underutilized land and other opportunities to add new housing -- no land parcel should be considered too small

• Incentivize small-scale prototypes as a way to test out new ideas and foster innovation -- specifically with respect to climate change and construction productivity

• Eliminate all parking minimums - no ifs, ands, or buts

• Depoliticize the planning process as much as possible -- local politicians are not generally incentivized to encourage new housing

• Eliminate the ability for individuals to block or significantly delay new housing

• Ensure that there are enough staff to expeditiously review and process development and building permit applications -- if builders are hiring "expediters" in the hopes of moving these things along, it means something is broken

• Put in place strict response and issuance timelines for building permits

• Bonus city staff (and anyone else who touches housing supply) based on the number of housing units approved and permitted each year

• Design smaller and more urban-friendly garbage trucks so that less space is lost in every new housing development

• Reduce/eliminate complex urban design guidelines, such as Toronto's widely used 45-degree angular plane guideline

What is missing from this list? And/or what did I get wrong?

Last updated: July 25, 2022

One of the most common objections to new housing is that the place is already too crowded and potentially even full. But Jerusalem Demsas' recently article in The Atlantic about how much people seem to hate other people is a good reminder that the topic of overpopulation can be a complicated one.

Because what are we really saying when we say a place is too crowded or full? Is it just that this particular neighborhood is full, or are we talking about entire cities being full?

Moreover, who determines when a place is full? Berkeley, California is, for example, a hell of a lot less dense than a city like Paris. So if a place like Berkeley can be considered full by some people, what does that mean for Paris? Presumably it's entirely unliveable.

Or could it be that the entire world is simply full and we should be looking at more drastic measures to curb population growth (in the places that are actually reaching replacement-level fertility rates)?

It's all very complicated. Thankfully Demsas offers up some possible solutions in her article:

We have, of course, discovered an elusive technology to allow more people to live on less land: It’s called an apartment building. And if people would like fewer neighbors competing for parking spaces, then they should rest assured that buses, trains, protected bike lanes, and maintained sidewalks are effective, cutting-edge inventions available to all.

The rest of the article is just as good.