Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 20/09/2021 (620 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

With the COVID-19 pandemic disrupting global supply chains, and consumer demand rising as the economy rebounds, inflation rates are being pushed to their highest levels in almost 20 years. The federal election campaign has seen affordability emerge as a central issue concerning Canadians, and with home prices skyrocketing across the country, much of the discussion has naturally centred on housing.

Any solution to what is being called Canada’s housing crisis will require close examination of both housing and transportation. These two key drivers of inflation are intrinsically linked, and together represent 50 per cent of Canadian household spending.

Comparisons are often made between the baby-boomer generation and millennials to demonstrate how today’s cost of living has increased. Relative to income growth, average house values, the purchase price of a vehicle and the cost of a litre of gasoline have all more than doubled since the 1970s. These are striking increases, but looking more closely, our lifestyle expectations may be having an even greater impact.

Since 1975, the average size of a new home in Canada has doubled, from 1,050 square feet to 2,100 square feet, despite today’s average household size being one person less. Neighbourhoods in the 1970s were typically 30 per cent more dense than today, with fewer peripheral suburbs requiring long driving distances.

The average number of vehicles owned by each household has more than doubled, and vehicles sizes have dramatically increased in that time. More that 80 per cent of automobiles sold in Canada today are trucks or SUVs, compared to only 20 per cent in the 1970s.

Any comparison of affordability between today and the baby-boomer generation must consider lifestyle as much as cost. Baby boomers were buying much smaller houses, far fewer cars and cars that were smaller, and they were driving less.

If we want to make housing and transportation more affordable, an important starting point will be to focus on designing neighbourhoods that allow people to return to a lifestyle less reliant on automobiles, with greater access to a more diverse range of housing sizes and types. The Housing + Transportation Affordability Index in the United States studied 20 metropolitan areas and found combined housing and transportation costs consumed up to 20 per cent less household income in neighbourhoods where walking, biking, and public transit are more viable transportation options compared with distant car-oriented neighbourhoods.

At a civic level, there are many key planning strategies that can effectively create housing affordability through neighbourhood design. Allowing and even incentivizing construction of higher density, more diverse housing options that include secondary suites, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments in walkable, transit-oriented, mature neighbourhoods provides access to an affordable lifestyle for a greater number of people.

Another important move is for governments to stop mandating minimum numbers of parking stalls required for new residential developments. Allowing developers to build what they feel is appropriate for the market often results in a significant reduction in the number of stalls built, meaning the construction cost — which can be as much as $60,000 for an underground stall — is no longer baked into rents or purchase prices.

Eliminating parking minimums also allows smaller infill building to be constructed on properties that might not be large enough to accommodate mandated parking levels. This includes development such as basement suites or laneway housing that provide gentle neighbourhood density increases and more access to affordable housing and transportation options in mature communities.

Relaxing density restrictions on multi-family housing would allow developers to divide land values and other development costs between a greater number of units, helping to make rents more affordable and infill projects more economically viable.

Cities can create a framework for more affordable neighbourhoods through planning and zoning, but federal and provincial governments have an important role to play by aligning funding sources with civic priorities. It is critical that all levels of government are willing and collaborative partners in affordable city-building. In Winnipeg we have seen how federal dollars for such things as public transit can go unused if provincial priorities do not align.

Programs from provincial and federal governments could help to incentivize and subsidize construction of more diverse housing typologies such as co-op housing, secondary suites and affordable rentals for the 30 per cent of Canadians who live in rental housing. It is also vital that a primary focus remains on providing housing across all neighbourhoods for the homeless and the 1.6 million Canadians who live in core housing need, defined as living in unsuitable, inadequate or unaffordable dwellings.

With housing and transportation being responsible for half of all household expenditures in Canada, tackling today’s cost-of-living challenge begins with how we design our neighbourhoods. The types of housing we build and where we build it are fundamental decisions affecting affordability. All levels of government working toward a common vision to provide more diverse housing and transportation options across all neighbourhoods will allow more people to attain a high quality of life while living more affordably.

Brent Bellamy is senior design architect for Number Ten Architectural Group.