As Ontario grapples with the twin problems of a housing shortage and escalating climate change, a new report calls for a transformative building shift to mid-rise, transit-oriented development.
The Mid-Rise Manual, commissioned by Environmental Defence, said this type of housing is the best sustainable alternative to sprawling suburbs. Apartment buildings of five to 11 storeys can help address the urgent need for 1.5 million new homes by 2031, while protecting Ontario’s farmland, preserving greenspace and promoting greener, more affordable homes.
The manual suggests that mid-rise buildings are more cost-effective and faster to construct than high-rises, and can be built with low-carbon materials like mass timber, further advancing Ontario’s climate goals.
However, buildings of that height are hampered by current land use planning laws, building codes, tax rules and service charges, leading to an over-dependence on either high-rise or suburban single-family homes, Phil Pothen, land use program manager at Environmental Defence, told Canada’s National Observer.
“There’s no hope of ending Ontario’s housing shortage, or even delivering the 1.5 million homes the Ford government has promised, without unlocking mid-rise development,” Pothen said. “Almost all of the changes we’ve identified as necessary are within the provincial government’s power to deliver.”
Earlier this year, the Ford government introduced legislation aimed at “building more homes faster.” The government committed to streamlining processes and supporting construction of 1.5 million homes by 2031. The changes are projected by government to reduce bureaucratic delays, improve service delivery, and save residents and businesses over 1.5 million hours and $1.2 billion annually.
However, advocates warn this legislation threatens wilderness, wetlands and valuable farmland, arguing it will fuel urban sprawl that encroaches on Ontario’s natural and agricultural areas. They note that sprawl is currently driving the loss of over 319 acres of farmland daily, threatening food security and native species.
The Environmental Defence manual estimates that by designating mid-rise-friendly zones along existing transit routes and major streets, Toronto alone could add 545,000 new homes, and make a significant dent in the province’s housing goals.
In British Columbia recently, new legislation has allowed six-storey, mid-rise buildings along major streets in established neighborhoods. The manual suggests Ontario could also create higher-density housing that supports walkability, public transit use and reduced car dependency. To encourage this development, the province should relax minimum parking requirements, simplify building codes and encourage sustainable building practices, such as light-frame wood construction. The approach would help reduce suburban sprawl and limit transportation emissions, all while preserving green spaces and ecosystems, says Environmental Defence.
“Current processes are time consuming, complicated and expensive,” the manual reads. “Looking at government fees and taxes per housing unit, it's more expensive to get approval for the labour-efficient, mid-rise housing on our existing major residential streets, than it is for single family homes, which are an inefficient use of our labour and land resources by comparison.”
Mike Williams, chief executive officer of the West End Home Builders’ Association, says the current pace of construction and regulatory environment make it "unlikely" that Ontario will achieve its goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2031. He said there is no "silver bullet" to solve the housing crisis. All levels of government and the private sector must work together to streamline the lengthy approvals process, reduce taxes on new housing, and support the infrastructure needed for housing development, he said.
On top of the recommendations by Environmental Defence, Williams advocates for the adoption by Ontario of single-stair buildings in the building code — as allowed in B.C. This building approach creates more interior space with less need for hallways and stairwells.
Williams said the current housing shortage developed over the last decade because of inadequate long-term planning, costly government policies and increased taxes and fees on new housing.
“Given how serious the housing crisis currently is across Ontario, we need governments to take even bolder actions to reduce approval timelines, reduce risk and uncertainty and to reduce the cost to build mid-rise housing,” Williams said.
Comments
Why do they keep calling it a housing shortage? It's not a shortage, it is an affordability crisis. There is so much inventory (empty new condos, bungalows, semi's and town homes) on the market and not much is moving. In fact a lot of builders have paused and laid off people until things recover. This at least applies to Ontario in many places, can't speak about other provinces. This is not to imply all building has stopped, but depends on the area and growth.
Let's show it for what is really going on than a hosing shortage.
- Building materials are lot more expensive these days
- Trades labour is much more expensive
- Higher permit costs
- Home meeting more efficient heating/cooling standards increase costs
- Fuel costs
- Mortgage programs are out of date compare to the reality of home prices are more than doubled in the past 3-4 years, while wages have remained static
Where as, with buyers and renters...
- Wages have fallen way behind, while corporations are making record profits
- Cost of groceries have nearly doubled. along with many other necessities
- Rents have become ridiculous for many, especially in Toronto
- Since wages have fallen behind, all the increased costs place a strain on family budgets
Let's not whitewash the real problem here and call it an affordability crisis, than a shortage.
You missed a big one: land costs.
In Vancouver structures are usually assessed a lot lower than the land. Why? 75 years of exclusionary zoning locked in extraordinarily wasteful sprawl while the city was hemmed in by geography and protected agricultural land. Add decades of growing demographic pressure and something has to give, namely prices. The city ran out of developable land 25 years ago and is now infilling. A lesson on old school urbanism: 80% of Vancouver's zoned residential landscape accommodates just 30% of all housing. Meaning the towers popping up everywhere, which get all the press, occupy the leftover 20% of land. That's now changing, but the zoning and development was controversial from the start. Speculation also got all the press, but all the measures put into place to slow it down (vacant homes taxes, speculation taxes, beefed up FINTRAC efforts on money laundering, tossing out politicians like BC's Christy Clark who were notorious for entertaining foreign speculators in exchange for cash donations. etc.) have not lowered prices. That leaves land use planning -- more accurately, a lack of it.
Your first three "high cost" items (materials, labour, permit costs) are all part of doing business. If there were no sales, prices would drop. Permit costs are a favourite bugbear of incompetent permit applicants who need to resubmit due to missing information, overworked high volume private consultants who make mistakes, or who are nefarious for sneaking in stuff like extra mezzanines after permit approval, then who get caught and face the costs of their shysterism. Work the other side of the counter and you'll be educated very fast with the shenanigans city staff have to put up with, and who often have to spend double or triple the amount of time handholding too many applicants who get it wrong, only to be accused by the same builders of "high permit costs" when they are forced to pay for the city's cost for second or third round. The developers who make all effort to get it right early in the permit review process are in the minority, and are the first ones to get the green stamp, get out the door, build their project and move on to the next one before the others who spend too much time cutting corners or harassing staff with pointless phone calls requesting to jump the queue before they've met their permit application obligations.
When I read short sighted complaints about about the "high cost" of energy efficiency upgrades, I immediately reject the complaint because it is negated by orders of magnitude in energy cost savings over the life of the building. Of course, that's not a concern to those benefitting from a quick sale of a unit and who don't give a hoot about their client's long term well being. Having said that, there are a few smart builders and developers who actually market energy efficient measures in their projects, and that does appeal to those clients who are looking for a home, not a commodity to flip at the earliest opportunity.
Your talk about stagnant incomes in relation to real estate prices should come with a grain of salt. Obviously two-income families will have more income per household. Ditto homes with rental suites to help cover mortgages. Essentially, if family incomes are limited, then expand them with third party money via basement suites.
Regarding high rents, obviously senior governments have to build more. There are various models in Europe that cover a range of possibilities, from outright subsidized housing to break even non profits. A certain critical mass of public rentals and social housing will act as a counterweight to market forces. Today, there is a dearth of tiny purpose-built short-term rental apartments that are too small to live in long term. The market pushed politicians to allow AirBNB and such, then the backlash put a stop to them and they remain vacant in many cities across the land. This was a predictable problem.
Let's not whitewash the real problem here and call it an affordability crisis caused by short-sighted market forces that have influenced land use planning for decades.
Correction:
"...there is an oversupply of tiny purpose-built short-term rental apartments..."
Quote: "Earlier this year, the Ford government introduced legislation aimed at “building more homes faster.” The government committed to streamlining processes and supporting construction of 1.5 million homes by 2031. The changes are projected by government to reduce bureaucratic delays, improve service delivery, and save residents and businesses over 1.5 million hours and $1.2 billion annually. "
A classic example where Doug 'The Thug' Ford government has missed the real problem, where building more homes won't solve the affordability crisis. The 'shortage of housing' is being used by Ford to fill the pork barrels of his corrupt developer donors and to justify raping and pillaging the ecosystem and farm land in the process. Maybe he hasn't missed the problem and using it to whitewash what he is really doing when it comes to environmental and climate change concerns.
The media should look deeper in these so called "build more homes faster" legislation and see, that the opposite has actually happen as many builders have slowed or stopped building, given the market is fairly slow, if not dead in many areas.
I agree with the thrust of this article, and understand it is backed by decades of sound urban planning analysis.
I would add that the concern over affordability in condos can be addressed in part by removing a portion of the underground parking supplied with units in projects located in walkable and transit rich neighbourhoods. One underground stall adds roughly $60,000 to a unit's asking price.
Moreover, living in a low or mid rise near continuous sidewalk retail (better yet, a pedestrian plaza or a car-free pedestrian road) adds to the richness of urban experience and human scale of streetscapes, making them attractive places to socialize and to meet all one's needs, so unlike suburbia. The cost of land is high in most Canadian cities. So, use less of it per home.