The province of British Columbia made the following announcement this week:

The Province has updated the BCBC to remove the [building] code requirement for a second egress, or exit, stairwell per floor in buildings up to six storeys. This change will make it possible to build housing projects on smaller lots and in different configurations, while allowing more flexibility for multi-bedroom apartments, more density within areas of transit-oriented developments and the potential to improve energy efficiency in buildings. Previously, the BCBC called for at least two egress stairwells in buildings three storeys and higher.

This is meaningful progress. And BC is the leading the way in Canada. But from a global perspective, we are not leading the way. This is us catching up.

As part of this building code change, the province commissioned a report on single egress stair building designs. In this report, they looked at various jurisdictions from around the world:

Their non-exhaustive findings:

There are at least 30 jurisdictions with SES building design requirements that permit midrise buildings with a building height of at least 5 or 6 storeys. In addition, the Center for Building in North America (www.centerforbuilding.org) reports that 8 US states have passed legislation into law, or are reviewing possible options for doing so, to allow larger SES buildings when their Building Code is next revised. In most cases these revisions are intended to allow SES buildings of up to 6 storeys.

For example, Seattle already allows up to 6 storeys. Belgium, New Zealand, and Australia allow up to 9 storeys (driven by a maximum height in meters). And Finland allows up to 18 storeys, according to the report.

Though keep in mind that building codes are complicated and often have frustrating gray areas. There may be other requirements that need to be met in order to achieve these heights.

It's great to see BC making these moves. Now watch for other provinces to follow suit.

There is a common narrative that, when it comes time to start a family and have kids, you should probably consider moving to the suburbs. Sure, you'll have a painful commute, but you'll get more space for your money, and maybe you'll end up with better kids.

I don't know, obviously not everyone agrees with this. I certainly don't.

But it is something that commonly happens and, in many cities, it is now happening more often. Here is a map from the Centre for London showing the change in the proportion of households with at least one dependent child from 2001 to 2021:

A darker borough means that it lost households with at least one child. And a lighter borough means that it gained more kids. Why this is concerning is that it means the trendline is toward more, and not less, childless cities. Here's an excerpt from a recent FT article:

A future with dwindling numbers of children is one many cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC, are grappling with. In Hong Kong, for every adult over 65 there are, to put it crudely, 0.7 children, and in Tokyo it is even fewer (0.5).

Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. And we know the main drivers:

Randal Cremer is one of several planned primary school closures and mergers in inner London triggered by low birth rates, families moving away because of expensive childcare, Brexit, and parents re-evaluating their lives during the pandemic. The biggest factor, says Riley, is that “housing is just becoming unaffordable”. Philip Glanville, mayor of Hackney, calls it “the acute affordability crisis”.

So how do we start to solve this? Here are a few ideas that we recently talked about on the blog, but it is by no means an exhaustive list. In my opinion, this is a problematic trend that deserves a lot more attention. Because cities are at their best when they work for everyone -- from the young to the old.

Here's a potential scenario:

“When you have investors competing with first-time buyers who walk in with a couple of [baby] strollers, typically the investor is going to win,” Mr. Pasalis says. “They are well capitalized. They can pay a higher price. And this is why our home ownership rate is declining, because more and more homes are actually going into the hands of investors who rent them out, and amplifying home and amplifying condo prices. We are seeing that.”

But let's break this down a little.

Where are these first-time buyers walking into? Is it a resale home showing or is it a pre-construction showroom? If it's the latter, then we know it's going to be difficult / atypical for them to make a buy decision so far in advance. They already have multiple strollers in hand, do they want to wait 4-7 years for their pre-construction home to be ready?

I would also add that in our current environment -- where investor demand for pre-construction homes has waned significantly -- the development industry has not seen a marked uptick in end-user demand. Why are they not stepping up now that they're not being outbid by investors? In my opinion, it's an ideal time to buy!

One reason could be that people who own strollers still largely prefer low-rise housing. Maybe it's for reasons of affordability, maybe it's a cultural bias, or maybe it's a genuine preference. Either way, let's turn our attention to resale homes. In this scenario, who is likely to pay the most?

If you're an investor, then you are looking for a specific yield. And so in theory, it should be a mostly dispassionate decision: "Here's the most that I can pay in order to meet my minimum returns. Do not exceed." But the question is whether is this is going to be more or less than what a stroller-owning group of people would pay.

The answer is probably that it depends. However, if the answer is that the investor wins and they then turn around and rent it to people who own strollers, is this actually a problem? And if this same investor happens to own 25 other rental homes and they're all rented to people who own strollers, is this an even greater problem?

I suppose it is a problem if you're worried about Canada's homeownership rate, which has in fact declined from about 69% (in 2011) to 66.5% (in 2021). But what does this even mean? Is a higher homeownership rate always better? Does Canada have a target number? As of February of this year, the homeownership rate in Switzerland was only about 36.3%. And the last time I checked, it was still a rich country.

There is nothing wrong with renting. I know wealthy people who have opted to rent their entire life because they enjoyed the flexibility and/or had better places to put their money.

All of this said, the argument in the above scenario is that, but for investors outbidding people with strollers, these homes would be more affordable and that would in turn increase the homeownership rate. It's a similar argument to, but for foreign buyers or but for Airbnbs, these homes would be more affordable.

But in a city like Toronto, we are building very little in the way of new low-rise houses. New supply is virtually non-existent. Similarly in Seattle, they are now building more accessory dwelling units than they are single-family houses. So it is any wonder that demand is constantly outstripping supply and that prices are being bid up?

In my opinion, a better solution is to rethink how we build our low-rise neighborhoods. And here and here are two good places to start.