As the June 2 provincial election approaches, affordable housing is understandably emerging as a lightning-rod issue, with rents and purchase prices soaring.
Unfortunately and unfairly, the issue is being used to justify further encroachment by highways and sprawl development on natural areas and farmland.
Can we meet the housing needs of current and future Ontarians while preserving the wetlands, forests and fields that sustain us? The answer is a resounding YES.
Here are seven things you need to know about the housing crisis:
High prices are fueled by land speculation and investor purchasing. Coupled with historically low interest rates, land speculation by developers and housing investment purchases have reinforced the problem of “runaway housing prices.” Investors now make up more than 25 percent of homebuyers in Ontario – cutting out the people looking to purchase a home for themselves.
Developers stand to make windfall profits when lands outside existing urban boundaries are opened up for development. If environmental regulations, municipal planning or public consultation get in the way, they can resort to Minister’s Zoning Orders which bypass such steps.
Zoning should promote infill development. To increase housing supply and affordability, municipal zoning should promote building on vacant or underutilized lands already designated for growth (which, of course, would not include urban greenspace).
Zoning should promote gentle density. Allowing more multi-unit and mid-rise buildings (e.g., smaller scale apartment buildings, semi-detached homes, townhomes and co-housing), would provide more affordable options for seniors (looking to downsize yet stay within their communities), single people and families with smaller housing budgets.
Gentle density creates more walkable, sustainable neighbourhoods. Gentle density provides easier access to amenities and services and public transit. According to the Task Force, “gentle density also makes better use of roads, water and wastewater systems, transit and other public services that are already in place and have capacity, instead of having to be built in new areas.” Using existing infrastructure means savings for municipalities and taxpayers.
Don’t be fooled by calls to expand urban boundaries. Continued sprawl is not the answer. There are far more effective ways to provide affordable housing, premised on densification rather than sacrificing precious remaining wetlands, forests and farmland. At stake are climate resilience, food security, clean water, biodiversity conservation and access to nearby nature, so vital to our health and well-being.
Anne Bell is Ontario Nature's Conservation Policy Advisor. Anne directed Ontario Nature’s conservation and education programs from 2007 to spring 2024 and is currently acting as a part-time advisor prior to her full retirement. She holds a Ph.D. in environmental studies and has over 30 years of experience working as an environmental educator, researcher and advocate. Anne loves to go birding, camping, swimming, cross-country skiing, and to play hockey with family and friends.
6 Replies to “The Housing Crisis: What You Need to Know ”
Some varied useful infirmation and responses. As one of the more than six million Canadians with disability I note that, the term “affordable” housing is, (rightly) , used often by politicians and social Justice groups. As one of our six million+ Canadians with disability I note the additional vital description “safe” housing, other than by some, such as Habitat For Humanity, is rarely used.
This must also apply both to new projects and, esp. in the case of such as the disabled, all existing housing. Although all traditional and historic great Human Rights, such as UDHR, article 25, call for that factor it is not often fulfilled, legally or ethically. At now 83, with lifelong serious disabilities, my Wife and I have silent many years and over $80,000 from our small pension to disability renovate our home. All our protective work can be instantly, terrifyingly, unnecessarily, negated by others.
This misses the real cause of the problem entirely.
There is an imbalance of supply and demand – but the problem in th elong and short term is an excess of demand caused by high population growth. The high population is nearly all due to immigration – which is a sacred cow in many quarters, but the beneficiaries of high population growth are large corporations and the 1%.
Canada had under 90,000 immigrants in 1983-5 under PE Trudeau – Mulroney cranked it up to over 200,000, and in 2015 under harper it was 240,000 – and we had housing affordability problems at that level. Then Justin Trudeau increased it to 340,000 in 2019 – to 400,000 in 2020 and now 447,000 for next year 2023. About 1/3 of immigration comes to the GTA.
A chart of population growth vs housing inflation shows a connection.
Canada had twice the population growth of the US in 2019 – 1.4% vs 0.7% there… their issues are different and a lack of supply since 2009 – not here, we are building record numbers of homes (in 40 years). Australia and NZ have similar problems and causes to ours.
We need some immigration – but not this much. What is behind the high numbers? Look up the website for the “Century Initiative” – which calls for 100 million in Canada in the year 2100.The GTA is supposed to go from 8.8 million to 33.5 million. Diane Francis wrote a column on it in 2021 – this is backed by the makor banks, Power Corporation, and guess who: Mulroney.
The biger the city, the higher the prices. The more future expected population growth the higher the prices today… if people expect propulation to shrink, prices drop.
Population growth and envirnmentalism do not mix. Canada is supposed to cut GHGs by 30% from 2005 to 2030 – but our population will grow by nearly 30% by 2030 – meaning per capita cuts of 50% not 30% – this is why despite LEDS, closing coal plants etc. we are behind.
Immigration is a joint federal/provincial rsponsibility. Quebec has opted for less immigration than Ontario, its economy is booming and housing is not as expensive.
A labour shortage is a good thing – for workers. It is businesses who like to have more workers than jobs – a labour surplus. Corporations want more GDP – workers want higher GDP per capita. We should be suspicious of economic growth – the planet and cour country are finite… exponential economic growth cannot continue for ever.
Great article with points that are so true. There is definitely already enough built space available to meet the “housing crisis” and also, at the same time, take actions that support minimizing negative climate impacts without bulldozing over even one more hectare of our natural environment. Thanks for writing on this topic.
Thanks for clarifying the problems with the housing crisis and pointing out that there is designated land available in residentially zoned areas. It is a mentality problem isn’t it? We are trained to carve out our individual private oasis” in the country” thereby parcelling up and destroying the whole. I live in Grey Bruce and remember with fury -expert planners being hired for the official plan, who promptly figured that this area ( Grey County -where agriculture is more difficult that in Bruce) can only advertise itself as a retirement landscape parcelling more land to built city peoples second houses, rather than enhancing existing communities. I grew up in a town of 50,000 in Germany and have lived for most of my life in the village of Paisley ( 1000 people) which covers about the same area than the town of my birth. There are now two objects planned in Paisley to densify the community: An apartment building on the site of the former hotel in the centre and the conversion of a mill into multi party living space. Hopefully these projects work out for the developers. The need is certainly there.
As I drive around London I notice several downtown buildings in disrepair. They are hard to look at. They once hosted small businesses, bars, restaurants, etc. Now empty and falling aprt. I wonder if this is the kind of thing you are talking about. Mind you, re-developement would require lots of construction in the middle of a city. Not easily done I don’t imagine.
I thought I might speak with my local city councillor about it though. Thanks for your blog.
Another suggestion is to shift the municipal tax off buildings and onto land, rev neutral shift. This would incent more construction on less land, no longer punishing landlords for improving and adding to the housing stock. It’s called Land Value Taxation. It would also capture the windfall profits from speculation.
Some varied useful infirmation and responses. As one of the more than six million Canadians with disability I note that, the term “affordable” housing is, (rightly) , used often by politicians and social Justice groups. As one of our six million+ Canadians with disability I note the additional vital description “safe” housing, other than by some, such as Habitat For Humanity, is rarely used.
This must also apply both to new projects and, esp. in the case of such as the disabled, all existing housing. Although all traditional and historic great Human Rights, such as UDHR, article 25, call for that factor it is not often fulfilled, legally or ethically. At now 83, with lifelong serious disabilities, my Wife and I have silent many years and over $80,000 from our small pension to disability renovate our home. All our protective work can be instantly, terrifyingly, unnecessarily, negated by others.
This misses the real cause of the problem entirely.
There is an imbalance of supply and demand – but the problem in th elong and short term is an excess of demand caused by high population growth. The high population is nearly all due to immigration – which is a sacred cow in many quarters, but the beneficiaries of high population growth are large corporations and the 1%.
Canada had under 90,000 immigrants in 1983-5 under PE Trudeau – Mulroney cranked it up to over 200,000, and in 2015 under harper it was 240,000 – and we had housing affordability problems at that level. Then Justin Trudeau increased it to 340,000 in 2019 – to 400,000 in 2020 and now 447,000 for next year 2023. About 1/3 of immigration comes to the GTA.
A chart of population growth vs housing inflation shows a connection.
Canada had twice the population growth of the US in 2019 – 1.4% vs 0.7% there… their issues are different and a lack of supply since 2009 – not here, we are building record numbers of homes (in 40 years). Australia and NZ have similar problems and causes to ours.
We need some immigration – but not this much. What is behind the high numbers? Look up the website for the “Century Initiative” – which calls for 100 million in Canada in the year 2100.The GTA is supposed to go from 8.8 million to 33.5 million. Diane Francis wrote a column on it in 2021 – this is backed by the makor banks, Power Corporation, and guess who: Mulroney.
The biger the city, the higher the prices. The more future expected population growth the higher the prices today… if people expect propulation to shrink, prices drop.
Population growth and envirnmentalism do not mix. Canada is supposed to cut GHGs by 30% from 2005 to 2030 – but our population will grow by nearly 30% by 2030 – meaning per capita cuts of 50% not 30% – this is why despite LEDS, closing coal plants etc. we are behind.
Immigration is a joint federal/provincial rsponsibility. Quebec has opted for less immigration than Ontario, its economy is booming and housing is not as expensive.
A labour shortage is a good thing – for workers. It is businesses who like to have more workers than jobs – a labour surplus. Corporations want more GDP – workers want higher GDP per capita. We should be suspicious of economic growth – the planet and cour country are finite… exponential economic growth cannot continue for ever.
Great article with points that are so true. There is definitely already enough built space available to meet the “housing crisis” and also, at the same time, take actions that support minimizing negative climate impacts without bulldozing over even one more hectare of our natural environment. Thanks for writing on this topic.
Thanks for clarifying the problems with the housing crisis and pointing out that there is designated land available in residentially zoned areas. It is a mentality problem isn’t it? We are trained to carve out our individual private oasis” in the country” thereby parcelling up and destroying the whole. I live in Grey Bruce and remember with fury -expert planners being hired for the official plan, who promptly figured that this area ( Grey County -where agriculture is more difficult that in Bruce) can only advertise itself as a retirement landscape parcelling more land to built city peoples second houses, rather than enhancing existing communities. I grew up in a town of 50,000 in Germany and have lived for most of my life in the village of Paisley ( 1000 people) which covers about the same area than the town of my birth. There are now two objects planned in Paisley to densify the community: An apartment building on the site of the former hotel in the centre and the conversion of a mill into multi party living space. Hopefully these projects work out for the developers. The need is certainly there.
As I drive around London I notice several downtown buildings in disrepair. They are hard to look at. They once hosted small businesses, bars, restaurants, etc. Now empty and falling aprt. I wonder if this is the kind of thing you are talking about. Mind you, re-developement would require lots of construction in the middle of a city. Not easily done I don’t imagine.
I thought I might speak with my local city councillor about it though. Thanks for your blog.
Linda Sloan. London Ontario
Another suggestion is to shift the municipal tax off buildings and onto land, rev neutral shift. This would incent more construction on less land, no longer punishing landlords for improving and adding to the housing stock. It’s called Land Value Taxation. It would also capture the windfall profits from speculation.