5 lessons from ancient civilizations for keeping homes cool in hot, dry climates

Aghazadeh Mansion, a national historic site in Iran, was built with elaborate wind towers and other natural cooling techniques. Amir.salehkhah via Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

Adriana Zuniga-Teran, University of Arizona

Modern buildings tend to take electricity and air conditioning for granted. They often have glass facades and windows that can’t be opened. And when the power goes out for days in the middle of a heat wave, as the Houston area experienced in July 2024 after Hurricane Beryl, these buildings can become unbearable.

Yet, for millennia, civilizations knew how to shelter humans in hot and dry climates.

As an architectural designer and researcher studying urban resilience, I have examined many of the techniques and the lessons these ancient civilizations can offer for living in hotter and drier conditions.

With global temperatures rising, studies show that dangerously hot summers like those in 2023 and 2024 will become increasingly common, and intense storms might result in more power outages. To prepare for an even hotter future, designers today could learn from the past.

Sumerians: Keeping cool together

The Sumerians lived about 6,000 years ago in a hot and dry climate that is now southern Iraq. Even then, they had techniques for managing the heat.

Archaeologists studying remnants of Mesopotamian cities describe how Sumerian buildings used thick walls and small windows that could minimize heat exposure and keep indoor temperatures cool.

A virtual tour of a reconstruction of the City of Ur.

The Sumerians built their walls and roofs with materials such as adobe or mud that can absorb heat during the day and release it during the nighttime.

They also constructed buildings right next to each other, which reduced the number of walls exposed to the intense solar radiation. Small courtyards provided lighting and ventilation. Narrow streets ensured shade throughout the day and allowed pedestrians to move comfortably through the city.

Ancient Egyptians: Harnessing the wind

The ancient Egyptians also used materials that could help keep the heat out. Palaces were made of stone and had courtyards. Residential buildings were made of mud brick.

Many people also adopted a nomadic behavior within their buildings to escape the heat: They used rooftop terraces, which were cooler at night, as sleeping quarters.

To cool buildings, the Egyptians developed a unique technology called the mulqaf, which consists of tall wall openings facing the prevailing winds. These openings act as scoops to capture wind and funnel it downward to help cool the building. The entering wind creates air circulation that helps vent heat out through other openings.

How wind catchers work.

The mulqaf principle could also be scaled up to cool larger spaces. Known as a wind catcher, it is currently used in buildings in the Middle East and Central Asia, making them comfortable without air conditioning, even during very hot periods.

Ancient Puebloans: Working with the Sun

Civilizations on other continents and at other times developed similar strategies for living in hot and dry climates, and they developed their own unique solutions, too.

The Puebloans in what today is the U.S. Southwest used small windows, materials such as mud brick and rock, and designed buildings with shared walls to minimize the heat getting in.

Puebloan cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde offered protection from the elements and, because of their orientation, protection from direct Sun in summer. Andreas F. Borchert, CC BY-SA

They also understood the importance of solar orientation. The ancient Puebloans built entire communities under the overhang of south-facing cliffs. This orientation ensured their buildings were shaded and stayed cooler during the summertime but received sunlight and radiated heat to stay warmer during the wintertime.

Their descendants adopted similar orientation and other urban-planning strategies, and adobe homes are still common in the U.S. Southwest.

Muslim caliphates: Using every drop of rain where it falls

Modern water management is also rarely designed for dry climates. Stormwater infrastructure is created to funnel runoff from rainstorms away from the city as fast as possible. Yet, the same cities must bring in water for people and gardens, sometimes from faraway sources.

Landscaping in the Mosque of Cordoba, Spain, was designed to funnel rainwater where needed for irrigation. Adriana Zuniga

During the eighth century, the Muslim caliphates in arid lands of northern Africa and the south of Spain designed their buildings with rainwater harvesting techniques to capture water. Runoff from rainfall was collected throughout the roof and directed to cisterns. The slope of the roof and the courtyard floor directed the water so it could be used to irrigate the vegetated landscapes of their courtyards.

Modern-day Mendoza, Argentina, uses this approach to irrigate the plants and trees lining its magnificent city streets.

Mayans and Teotihuacans: Capturing rainwater for later

At the city scale, people also collected and stored stormwater to withstand the dry season.

The ancient Teotihuacan city of Xochicalco and many Mayan cities in what today is Mexico and Central America used their pyramids, plazas and aqueducts to direct stormwater to large cisterns for future use. Plants were often used to help clean the water.

Large cisterns like this one in Xochicalco, a Teotihuacan community in what is now Mexico, were used to capture and store rainwater. Adriana Zuniga

Scientists today are exploring ways to store rainwater with good quality in India and other countries. Rainwater harvesting and green infrastructure are now recognized as effective strategies to increase urban resilience.

Putting these lessons to work

Each of these ancient cultures offers lessons for staying cool in hot, dry climates that modern designers can learn from today.

Some architects are already using them to improve designs. For example, buildings in the northern hemisphere can be oriented to maximize southern exposure. South-facing windows combined with shading devices can help reduce solar radiation in the summer but allow solar heating in winter. Harvesting rainwater and using it to irrigate gardens and landscapes can help reduce water consumption, adapt to drier conditions and increase urban resilience.

Retrofitting modern cities and their glass towers for better heat control isn’t simple, but there are techniques that can be adapted to new designs for living better in hotter and drier climates and for relying less on constant summer air conditioning. These ancient civilizations can teach us how.

Adriana Zuniga-Teran, Assistant Professor of Urban Geography, University of Arizona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Higher density living is changing the way neighbouring works in Canada

Simon Fraser University students compile survey packages for a community housing resident survey in North Vancouver in November 2023. (Meg Holden), Author provided

Meg Holden, Simon Fraser University and Yushu Zhu, Simon Fraser University

There is growing concern about people’s unwillingness to get to know their neighbours. This concern is significant enough to have spurred research into what has been termed the “emerging asocial society” — one of the challenge areas of an initiative called Imagining Canada’s Future.

To contribute to this challenge, our research examines what we do and do not know about neighbours in densifying Canadian cities.

Over the past three years, we have partnered with community housing providers seeking to improve resident quality of life in challenging conditions of change. Understanding whether residents are willing to get to know their neighbours is an important initial step.

The more willing people are to make ties, the better the prospects are for building social interactions into mutual feelings of trust, welcome and belonging in urban neighbourhoods. These feelings are linked to a number of positive impacts, including physical and mental health, voluntarism and participation, cost-effectiveness of urban planning and safety.

We specifically used the question “would you like to get to know your neighbours better?” to assess neighbour willingness. Comparing our results over the past three years suggests that concerns about the decline of neighbouring are not unfounded: growing numbers of people are not seeking to deepen their neighbourly ties.

Rather than sound the alarm about anti-social communities, we argue that the situation is more complex. Before we draw conclusions about the implications of social isolation, we should check our expectations of how, when and why neighbouring does or does not happen.

Many of the classical assumptions of neighbouring may not apply today. By the same token, we can’t expect old fashioned emblems of what neighbourly communities look like — think of the Neighbourhood Watch or Block Parent programs — to fit today’s picture.

Rapidly changing demographics

Federally, provincially, and within many regional and municipal governments, efforts to increase the supply of homes in Canada are at an all-time high. A growing share of these homes are in high-density buildings.

At the same time, the demographic composition of fast-growing neighbourhoods is changing. Canada set immigration records in 2022 and 2023, leading to changes in both the population and living environments of our cities.

When we scanned the research literature to understand what these changes might mean for the social dynamics of urban communities, and how to support neighbouring in this new context, we found very limited research about the kind of neighbours that high density and high social mix make, in Canada. Our research aims to fill this gap.

Our research focuses on the social aspects of urban life for residents of community housing, an umbrella term for non-market and non-profit housing that is home to many of those classified as vulnerable by the National Housing Strategy.

Through resident surveys and other methods like focus groups and photovoice, we seek the perceptions and experiences of neighbouring within contexts of rapid change that often involve poverty, immigration, social exclusion, resident turnover and eviction, and bias related to age, race, Indigeneity and other factors.

Our research demonstrates there are valid reasons for the ambivalence many people feel about their neighbours. Community housing residents may be prone to higher risks of conflict with higher stakes for their housing security and mental and physical health.

When people’s housing is unstable, inadequate, unaffordable and doesn’t provide access to the amenities and resources they need, they may be less likely to have the sense of welcome, belonging and trust to engage in neighbouring behaviour. This can result in less interest and less capability to be a good neighbour, classically understood.

At the same time, neighbouring remains possible and important in community housing. Our research shows the important role neighbouring plays in neighbourhood quality of life.

Neighbouring is a spectrum

In our focus group research conducted in Vancouver, we discovered that it makes more sense to consider neighbouring not as good versus bad but as a spectrum of different behaviours in challenging contexts.

Efforts to increase the supply of homes in Canada are at an all-time high and a growing share of them are in high-density buildings. (Ghazaleh Akbarnejad), CC BY

Residents of community housing experience neighbouring in ways that run the gamut from pro-social to anti-social, with a significant middle zone of asocial activities and relationships. Rather than associating certain behaviours with bad or good neighbours, different contexts and dimensions of vulnerability can determine where a behaviour falls on the neighbour spectrum.

Our focus group participants defined good neighbours as residents who understood the importance of social recognition, respect for difference and need for privacy, offering help, and opportunities for shared social activities.

In the middle zone, we found asocial neighbouring activities that defied categorization. Depending on the circumstances, these activities could be the source of conflict or a path to generate a more pro-social sense of neighbouring. Activities included mutual aid; sharing food; noise and odours; responding to illness and loss of life; observing rules; response to emergencies; attitudes about privacy; and organized social activities.

People who may appear disillusioned with their neighbours often still had the capacity to be good neighbours — but they struggled to be good neighbours under the weight of poverty, inequality, and the structures and regulations in place at home.

The more the participants discussed with one another and with us, the more willingness they demonstrated to improve the functional neighbourliness of their buildings. This willingness proves the potential for new programs, rules and spaces to support neighbouring within community housing. However, it also provides a warning.

New realities of neighbouring

Social connections are not a natural, synergistic outcome of living in close quarters with other people. New understandings of the spectrum of neighbouring may open up more meaningful neighbour behaviours for those facing social isolation who are most at risk from anti-social behaviours.

At the same time, making better neighbours is not always the place to start to improve quality of life in high density neighbourhoods undergoing rapid change. Neighbouring can be politically and emotionally charged. Pro-social neighbouring work should be treated with cultural and situational awareness in mind.

In the context of refugee settlement in particular, there is a need for both restraint and understanding of specific conditions and cultures before advancing social connections.

As urban and neighbourhood planning gears up to meet the demands of changing Canadian cities, we also need to consider neighbour dynamics.

We are in need of community development strategies that reflect new realities of neighbouring across a spectrum of structural and social expectations, risks and rewards. For rapidly changing neighbourhoods, with high levels of diversity and vulnerability, neighbouring carries risks and constraints, but still matters.

Meg Holden, Professor, Urban Studies and Professor of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University and Yushu Zhu, Assistant Professor, Urban Studies and Public Policy, Simon Fraser University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

Housing policies need to fully consider market dynamics to move beyond ‘tall and sprawl’ cities

Dawn Parker, University of Waterloo

The federal Task Force for Housing and Climate recently released its final recommendations for solving Canada’s housing crisis. The Blueprint for More and Better Housing contains suggestions for adding new affordable and climate-friendly homes by 2030.

The task force was launched in September 2023 to help federal, provincial and municipal governments address housing affordability and the climate crises in Canada. The report is aimed at building 3.8 million new homes, in line with estimates of housing need from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

However, the task force’s report recommendations fall short by failing to fully consider land and housing market dynamics.

Its recommendations could incentivize the building of overly-dense urban cores, perpetuating something called “tall and sprawl,” a term that refers to development patterns in cities that have very high, dense urban cores surrounded by large areas of lowrise housing.

Protecting greenfield areas

The report’s premise is on target in many ways. Considering more than 80 per cent of Canadians live in cities and most urban land is residential, any effective urban climate solutions must consider housing.

The report argues that increasing urban density can help protect greenfield areas from being converted to housing. However, it doesn’t take into account that too-high urban densities — densely paved and without sufficient green space — can exacerbate climate impacts.

This can intensify urban heat island effects, a phenomenon where an urban area is warmer than surrounding areas, leaving households more vulnerable during combined extreme heat and power outage events.

The report recommends governments implement province-wide zoning rules to better manage urban development. But it also suggests eliminating zoning regulations that ensure new buildings leave space for the green infrastructure that is essential to address climate challenges in our cities, like trees that provide urban cooling and absorb stormwater.

These actions contradict the report’s excellent suggestion that municipalities should plan for 40 per cent tree canopy cover, which research shows can help control daytime urban heat island impacts.

Trees need places to grow and thrive, which is typically ensured by regulations like minimum setbacks, landscaping requirements and maximum building footprints. Without these measures, land and housing markets will likely overlook the importance of providing these public good aspects, leaving buildings too close together and encouraging sprawling development.

Housing research tells us how households respond to too-dense, nature-deficient environments. We know that many households seek “missing middle” housing, which refers to medium-density, family-sized housing such as townhomes, duplexes and triplexes, and lowrise to midrise apartment buildings.

Without this type of housing being built in the green and amenity-rich environments they demand, households will move further afield, increasing pressures for greenfield conversion.

De-incentivizing unaffordable housing

The report encourages municipalities to build affordable housing on their own land, facilitated by financing, to help them acquire new land.

This is a strategy that has wide support, but it could backfire by adding fuel to already-inflated land values because it fails to acknowledge how those inflated land values are created.

Housing markets are more than builders who supply homes and residents who demand them. Markets for land, where housing is built and what homes are built are shaped by investors who supply finance and developers who demand finance.

For the report’s strategy to succeed, additional policies must rein in investors and developers by de-incentivizing their participation and reducing their impact on land value.

The federal government can address this by eliminating tax incentives for real estate investment trusts. Provincial governments can implement requirements for a percentage of affordable homes (known as inclusionary zoning) across municipalities — not just around transit stations — to prevent developers from leap-frogging regulation by building elsewhere.

Inclusionary zoning decreases land value uplift by reducing market developers’ profits, which creates an entry window for lower-cost and non-profit developers, as envisioned by the report.

The report’s recommendations to eliminate height and density restrictions near transit will further inflate land values. While building more units on a given piece of land might appear to lower housing costs, this is not the case.

At present, highrise development costs are roughly 2.5 times that of lowrise and demand high finance costs to compensate for their high risk. Land values reflect these high costs and profits, especially in areas where highrise builds are expected to be allowed.

Rethinking urban spaces

How can these conflicts be resolved? One approach is to establish both minimum and maximum residential zoning heights and densities, aligned with the typologies the report supports.

This would include building 10-unit apartments that follow pre-approved designs in residential neighbourhoods, zoning that encourages desirable midrise developments along main streets and creating 16-storey maximum zones to encourage the building of single-stairwell 16-storey buildings recommended in the report.

As mass timber buildings and other climate-friendlier highrise forms develop, zoning regulations should adapt to enable these typologies to facilitate and reward affordable, climate-friendly builds. There can still be a place for highrise buildings in well-designed cities, particularly if we reimagine how higrise and lowrise buildings can be combined to create green and liveable cities.

Dawn Parker, Professor in the School of Planning, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Heritage Conservation Districts at Risk in Kitchener

Kitchener's Core area with Heritage Conservation Districts in Red

A Heritage Conservation District (HCD) is an area within a municipality that is noted for its distinct heritage character and policies are put in place to guide future change. These policies are identified in a plan when a municipality enacts a HCD bylaw. In the case of Kitchener, the Victoria Park HCD was enacted in 1995 and the Civic Centre HCD was enacted in 2007. Both districts are adjacent to Kitchener's core and Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA). 

These HCDs are facing a very serious threat. The Province has determined that Kitchener should have higher density, particularly near. A proposal by planning staff, Growing Together, would allow high density buildings of 8 and 25 storey buildings in these historic areas.

ACO is opposed to these provisions because they are incompatible with the low density and culturally significant historic areas. We presented our opposition to the Growing Together plan at the Heritage Kitchener Advisory Committee and at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee. We then met with planning staff on February 29 to ask that HCDs be excluded from MTSAs. Planners appear to be unmoved by our concerns. They think that having buildings of 8 and 25 storeys is compatible with a heritage district. 

If the proposal is passed with tall buildings allowed inside HCDs, then the heritage district would be drastically reduced in size. Heritage districts were created because a significant number of buildings were in an area which needed protection under the Heritage Act. They also give value for tourism and they represent the physical aspect of the city’s past. 

Planners asked us: How is a tall building incompatible with heritage?

We asked them: How is a tall building built with glass and steel compatible with a district of buildings made of stone and brick more than 100 years ago?

There is plenty of room in Kitchener for growth outside the HCDs. The city is being asked to provide housing and ACO agrees that we need that increase in housing. But when you consider all of Kitchener’s heritage buildings, they are less than 2% of the 65,000 properties in the city.

We need to act to prevent the plan from being implemented by asking members of Kitchener’s City Council to oppose these proposed provisions in the plan.

If you live in Kitchener, please call or write your councillor and ask that HCDs be excluded from the Growing Together proposal. You need only say that you are concerned that the heritage districts are at risk and need to be protected.

Please talk to your neighbours and friends and encourage them to attend the meeting of Council on March 18 (7:00 pm in Council Chambers at 200 King Street West in Kitchener)

If you need to review our arguments, you can refer to the following statements we made to Heritage Kitchener:: 

ACO Submission to the Heritage Kitchener Advisory Committee

and to the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee here:

ACO Submission to PSIC

We need to write councillors and attend the Council meeting in order to turn the tide and save these historic, districts.

Now is the time to say something if you want to save the integrity of the Heritage Conservation Districts in Kitchener.

Write... talk... act!

 

It’s time we include cities and regions as equal partners in global climate negotiations

Marjolaine Lamontagne, McGill University and Charles Berthelet, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Last year’s UN climate conference (COP28) made history in Dubai by introducing — for the very first time — language on “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems” in the final version of the negotiated text.

While significant, this achievement was not the only notable event of last year’s climate talks.

COP28 was also the occasion of the first Local Climate Action Summit (LCAS) which brought together over 250 subnational and local leaders. As part of this program a delegation of mayors and governors from around the world took the stage alongside world leaders.

The purpose of LCAS was to demonstrate how subnational authorities around the world are already taking action to bolster climate mitigation and adaptation, often surpassing the ambition of national governments. Such recognition is long overdue.

Subnational and local authorities have historically been grouped in with civil society and private interests as “observers” at COP negotiations. Such a categorization dismisses the fundamental role subnational governments play both in implementing a just transition and in managing humanity’s lines of defence against the climate crisis.

It is high time that subnational voices be heard loud and clear, alongside national governments, within the United Nations’ Conference of the Parties framework.

Broadening diplomacy

Subnational climate summits are by no means a novelty of contemporary global governance.

Conferences of cities and regions organized by advocacy networks such as Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), Regions4, United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), and the Under2 Coalition have been around for decades. However, LCAS is the first gathering of its type to be included in the official program of a COP. This is clear progress.

LCAS sent the message that the parallel system of subnational diplomacy that has been developing over the past three decades ought to be fully recognized within global governance. Indeed, our climate goals will only be reached if subnational and national governments begin working together ensuring that policy expertise and financial resources are shared among different levels of governance, including in national reporting to the UN.

A recording of presentations as part of the LCAS.

The ideas presented at the LCAS forum were an exciting vision for the future, however, more work must be done to make this vision a reality.

Specifically, subnational governments need more direct access to UN institutions and a greater ability to weigh in on global policymaking and intergovernmental negotiations as part of a broader effort to “formalize subnational voices” in the agenda of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

These actions must be done in recognition of the central role subnational governments play in implementing carbon reduction and climate change adaptation and resilience policies.

On the frontlines

Subnational and local governments are “key enablers of a just transition” on the frontlines of the climate crisis with often greater legitimacy and competence to oversee context specific environmental transitions well-attuned to local needs.

It is worth remembering that cities emit up to 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and often serve as the economic engines of their respective nations. Cities therefore have a critical role to play in reducing energy demands and consumption. These are ambitions which can be achieved by incorporating densification, climate adaptation, public transportation and building decarbonization into future urban planning.

Regional governments constitute a pivotal link between local and central authorities and are often in a better jurisdictional position than national governments to lead the environmental transition. Regional governments already lead by spearheading efforts on climate adaptation and climate justice — jointly tackling the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Ultimately, we must move beyond understanding subnational governments as “non-state actors” — alongside businesses, NGOs and private individuals — and begin viewing them as state actors in their own right. This means giving municipal and regional authorities more opportunities to influence national and global environmental outcomes.

The multilateral declaration that created the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships at COP28 — endorsed as of now by 72 sovereign states — stimulates such progress, by encouraging national governments to create “inclusive institutional and informal processes to enable subnational governments to contribute to further enhancing Nationally Determined Contributions.”

Subnational leadership

Luckily, the gradual recognition and inclusion of subnational authorities is underway and the trends are only accelerating. Meanwhile, some cities and regions have already leapt ahead by demonstrating path-breaking leadership.

Some, like Québec and California, have even become fully autonomous actors of global environmental governance. California was a leading force in the Subnational Climate Action Leaders’ Exchange launched at COP27 as a forum for incubating new ideas. One of these ideas, the LOW-Methane initiative, was later launched by a coalition of international partners at COP28.

Meanwhile, Québec was appointed to the co-presidency of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. The BOGA is a coalition of sovereign and subnational states committed to banning fossil fuel investments and production on their territory. Québec first accomplished this goal in 2022, making it the first jurisdiction in North America (and one of the first in the world) to do so.

Such transformational subnational leadership raises important questions about the validity of continuing nation-state monopoly in international affairs, especially in this evolving era of global transformations and ecological crisis.

It is crucial that local and regional governments be formally awarded a distinct status and role in global governance institutions, differentiating them from other “non-state” stakeholders.

The creation of the Secretary General’s Advisory Group on Local and Regional Governments undoubtedly represents a step in the right direction. However, much remains to be done to meaningfully reform multilateralism in the lead-up to the UN Summit of the Future next September and COP29 in December 2024.

Simply put, subnational and local authorities must be brought into the room where diplomacy and global governance takes place. An ambition which entails a critical reflection on the inherent interconnections between local, subnational and national activities.

Including the subnational and local levels is not just a good idea, it is a crucial stepping stone in achieving global climate goals.

Marjolaine Lamontagne, Ph.D. Candidate in International Relations (Global Environmental Governance and Diplomacy), McGill University and Charles Berthelet, Ph.D. Candidate in Philosophy, Political Studies, and Sociology, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Inclusionary Zoning in Kitchener

 

On January 29, 2024, Kitchener Planning Staff proposed to increase the density of housing and require some affordable housing around seven ION light-rail stops.  ​Many property owners and developers objected.  Council expressed substantial reservations.  An opportunity to produce 800+ affordable homes over the next 10 years is at risk.  If Kitchener refuses to require some affordable housing, other municipalities in the Region of Waterloo and throughout Ontario may do so as well. To find out more and to sign a petition to support inclusionary zoning in Kitchener click here.

Two-thirds of Canadian and American renters are in unaffordable housing situations

A new study has found that nearly two-thirds of Canadians and Americans are significantly rent-burdened. (Shutterstock)

Grant Alexander Wilson, University of Regina and Tyler Case, University of Saskatchewan

Even as housing markets cool in some areas, housing affordability in Canada is the worst in over four decades due, in part, to sustained post-pandemic inflation and comparatively higher interest rates.

According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation — the federal Crown corporation responsible for administering Canada’s National Housing Act — affordability is defined as mortgage or rent payments that do not exceed more than 30 per cent of a household’s gross monthly income.

If a family makes $50,000 per year before taxes, for instance, anything more than $15,000 per year (or $1,250 per month) spent on rent would put them in an unaffordable situation.

Unaffordable housing situations have been shown to have serious negative outcomes related to communities’ health, crime rates, homelessness, the well-being of children and economic growth.

Accordingly, younger generations are deferring the homeownership dream because of their inability to secure mortgage financing, limited entry-level homeownership options and insufficient incomes.

To date, most research and policy work has focused on homeownership, with little emphasis on understanding the current state of rental affordability. It is becoming increasingly important to address affordability, as demand for rental housing has surged since homeownership is becoming out of reach.

Unaffordability is a growing concern

As economic and strategic management researchers, we were curious about three things: the percentage of individuals or families that are in unaffordable rental situations, how household spending patterns have changed to make ends meet, and whether knowledge of rental economics impacts the likelihood of being in an affordable rental situation.

In our forthcoming study of over 1,000 renters in North America in 2023, we examined household income, monthly expenditures (e.g., rent, food, transportation, clothing, travel, etc.) and knowledge of affordability and basic economics.

We assessed affordability understanding by asking participants if they understood the 30 per cent expenditure rule through a series of questions. Renters were self-identifed and recruited via Prolific, the international survey panel.

By comparing the annual incomes and rental expenditures of households in our sample, results showed that 63 per cent of renters were in unaffordable situations. This means nearly two-thirds of Canadians and Americans are significantly rent-burdened.

Although we expected the results to indicate some unaffordability situations, we did not expect it to be this great.

Solutions to rental crisis

Our data confirms that unaffordability is not just a homeownership issue, but also extends to the rental market. Given that lasting unaffordability has both social and macroeconomic consequences, it is critical that policymakers and industry leaders seek long-term fixes.

But solutions are complex and require a unified approach. Governments must ensure the rental housing supply is efficient to address the increasing affordability concern.

This means Crown corporations and government investments need to be more common. Additionally, civic policies need to promote new housing development and private investment.

For real estate organizations, the demand for affordable rental housing suggests the need to invest in renovating existing accommodations to maintain adequate housing stock and for developers to prioritize new, affordable rental solutions.

The knowledge and rental affordability link

One of the most interesting relationships we found in our data was related to “affordability knowledge” — or the expertise tenants have and use to make economical rental housing choices — and the percentage of income spent on rent.

Specifically, as affordability knowledge increased, the likelihood of being in an unaffordable rental accommodation decreased. The data suggests that the more people know about rental affordability, the better they can make informed rental decisions. This is noteworthy, as most of the recent emphasis has been on how governments, developers and landlords can make housing more affordable.

In addition to affordability efforts by major players in the market, affordability education has an important role to play and should be a top priority for policymakers. Investments in educational campaigns could improve household decision-making and rental affordability.

Historically, households have been good at prioritizing their needs versus wants in economic crises. Unfortunately, our results showed that individuals and families are cutting back on more than just luxury items.

For instance, in all areas of spending, households in unaffordable situations are making budget cuts on everything from groceries to physical activities. In short sprints, these spending re-allocations can be justified and even credited as fiscal responsibility.

But over time, these changes can have lasting health and wellness effects. So while renters have an important role to play, the responsibility doesn’t just fall on their shoulders — strategies require participation from governments and developers as well.

Where to next?

Although the most straightforward path to rental affordability in Canada and the U.S. relates to increasing supply, such as increasing new rental stock, a holistic approach that includes educating renters on affordability and basic housing economics can also be beneficial.

However, this is only a partial remedy for more systemic issue of a lack of affordable rental housing in developed economies in our study of Canadian and American renters.

Addressing the rent affordability crisis requires effective civic policies and planning as well as private sector investment and participation to ensure long-term sustainable housing.

This is a corrected version of a story originally published on Feb. 4. An earlier version of the story said the Canada Infrastructure Bank had invested $150 million in sustainable affordable housing. In fact, the Canada Infrastructure Bank committed $150 million towards sustainable retrofit projects with Avenue Living.

Grant Alexander Wilson, Assistant Professor, Hill and Levene Schools of Business, University of Regina and Tyler Case, Assistant Professor, Edwards School of Business, University of Saskatchewan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Canada is a suburban nation because of post-Second World War government policy

David L.A. Gordon, Queen's University, Ontario

Canada is a suburban nation, not only because of consumer preferences, but also because of federal government policy in the years following the Second World War.

Most post-war population growth in Canada was in the suburbs, with two-thirds of people living there in 2021, according to my research team’s analysis of the latest census.

But how did Canada become a suburban nation so quickly in the post-war era?

To answer that question, our team spent five years in national archives exploring many thousands of files, photographs, drawings, maps and plans.

No jurisdiction

In the years following the Second World War, the federal government led the country’s transformation from a rural to a suburban nation, despite lacking any constitutional jurisdiction in community planning.

Canada’s post-war policies on urbanism were first outlined in an obscure 1944 government document known as the Curtis Report. This report was a critical turning point for major changes in housing and community planning, setting Canada on a different course than the United Kingdom and the United States.

A million returning veterans created a housing crisis for a country of only 11 million people, perhaps more serious than the housing shortage Canada is currently experiencing. The Curtis Report proposed a bold strategy to build a million small, affordable homes in planned communities. It was bold because Canada only had a handful of community planners and the home-building industry had collapsed in the Depression.

The federal government did have some jurisdiction over banking and finance, and quickly developed new financial tools that allowed many veterans to buy a small home.

Before the war, many houses were self-built, or financed with short-term notes similar to car loans. Thousands of Canadian families lost their homes in the Depression when they could not repay these loans.

In 1946, the federal government established the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to insure a new form of 25-year, low-interest loan for veterans. The mortgages were soon extended to other families that were financially qualified.

Relevance today

Some other tools used from 1944-1959 are relevant in today’s housing crisis.

For example, Canadians had many good designs for small homes to choose from because the federal government’s Wartime Housing Limited organization experimented with minimum-sized homes for workers in suburban war-industry factories.

CMHC completed Wartime Housing Ltd. projects and created new designs for affordable small homes, such as the familiar 1.5-storey “Cape Cod” houses that were built across the country.

CMHC published these house designs as widely distributed pattern books. Families could choose a small home design from the book and, for a nominal sum, order blueprints for estimates from builders.

Many contemporary Canadian homebuilders appear to have forgotten how to build small houses for the entry-level market, opting for so-called “monster homes.” So the federal government’s December 2023 proposal to reintroduce small-home pattern books is a welcome one.

The CMHC also influenced suburban community design preferences by developing hundreds of neighbourhoods, several new towns and regulating private builders. CMHC opposed the grid subdivisions from the pre-war period and promoted modernist ideas about neighbourhood units composed of crescents and culs-de-sac centred around elementary schools.

Automobile-dependent

It also built neighbourhoods for federal agencies across the country, including an entire “model town” in Oromocto, N.B., for the Department of Defence.

The federal government used its spending power to influence the design of these new neighbourhoods. To receive infrastructure funding in a Federal-Provincial Land Assembly, towns had to accept CMHC’s neighbourhood design, often the first non-grid subdivision in their municipality.

Similarly, private developers who wanted CMHC’s valuable mortgage insurance were required to submit their subdivisions to the federal agency for approval and follow their site-planning standards.

As a result, Canada became a suburban nation with lots of sprawl, but it is planned sprawl, following principles demonstrated across Canada by the federal government.

Unfortunately, the new planning powers locked in vast areas of single-family homes with zoning rules that resisted any change. Most of these older Canadian suburbs simply don’t function very well for people who are too young, too old or too poor to own and operate an automobile.

Outdated idea

Our research shows that Canadian mass suburbanization was directed by public policy and its infrastructure was heavily subsidized.

Unfortunately, the authors of the Curtis Report couldn’t foresee the difficult environmental, social and financial consequences of mass suburbanization in 1944.

While single detached homes and automobiles seemed like desirable options 80 years ago, it proved physically impossible, too expensive and socially inequitable to build a large metropolis using only these tools.

With the benefit of hindsight, the federal government is once again using its spending power in its new Housing Action Plan to encourage municipalities to abandon single-family zoning and promote more flexible tools for planning 21st century communities.

It should consider similar conditions for its much larger transportation and utilities infrastructure programs.

David L.A. Gordon, Professor, School of Urban and Regional Planning; Department of Geography and Planning, Queen's University, Ontario

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

New study reveals four critical barriers to building healthier Canadian cities

Akram Mahani, University of Regina; Joonsoo Sean Lyeo, University of Toronto, and Nazeem Muhajarine, University of Saskatchewan

Many streets around the globe are becoming increasingly inhospitable to children and the elderly due to compounding traffic and road safety concerns which deter these groups from active transport, like walking or cycling. The recent emphasis on designing cities that cater to the well-being of individuals from ages eight to 80 isn’t just a catchy phrase, but a vital requirement to accommodate evolving demographic realities.

Similarly, the concept of the 15-minute city has garnered significant attention in recent years — despite baseless conspiracies accusing local authorities of plotting to limit residents to a small radius around their homes.

The 15-minute city is all about accessibility, time efficiency and expanding options for everyone, not just the most well-off. Achieving this goal, and designing healthier spaces, begins with a comprehensive understanding of how urban environments impact our health and well-being — along with a realistic look at the current barriers to healthier urban design.

Our recent research — conducted with the help of research assistants Shanzey Ali and Agnes Fung and the City of Regina and Saskatchewan Health Authority and currently awaiting peer review — set out to understand these barriers.

Designing better spaces

Research shows that the layout of streets, access to grocery stores, choice of construction materials in dwelling design, and the distribution of public services all play pivotal roles in influencing our health and well-being.

Neighbourhoods with accessible public and community spaces and social events have been shown to improve mental health, increase happiness, and offer a sense of belonging and community. At the same time, readily accessible grocery stores, community gardens and farmers’ markets have been shown to enhance mental, social and physical health.

So, how do we create built environments that are more beneficial? This is where urban planning comes in as municipal policy-makers develop and implement policies, which can alter the structure, use and regulations of public spaces in cities.

The intricate dance between urban planning and health has deep historical roots. The early use of sanitation and segregated zoning to control infectious disease outbreaks in the 19th century is well established and these efforts continue to this day.

Meanwhile, global agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN) have championed the integration of health and equity into urban governance. Indeed, the UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 aims for inclusive, resilient, safe and sustainable cities. Accordingly, cities are well positioned to safeguard population health and reduce health inequities in a changing climate.

Day-to-day challenges

So, why are we not seeing more urban design policies focused on residents’ health and well-being? Our findings shed light on four key issues.

1 – A lack of shared understanding of health equity

Policy makers lacked a shared understanding of health and equity which highlights the complexity of addressing health inequities and implementing effective policies. While the importance of physical and mental health was widely acknowledged, a glaring gap exists in the recognition of the social dimension of health.

Policy-makers often struggled to find common ground on what constitutes health and equity, which hindered meaningful action. As one policy-maker noted: “I don’t think our (design) standards have ever really been looked at from that health perspective.”

2 – The evidence is usually inaccessible

While policy-makers acknowledged evidence (data) as an essential building block of policy making, they explained there are significant barriers to accessing it. Administrative roadblocks, such as a lack of co-ordination between, and within, provincial and municipal governments, can prevent access to crucial data needed for policy making.

Financial barriers, such as paywalls, can lock access to scientific studies. Meanwhile, technical barriers — including the use of jargon and overly-technical language by the academic community — can interfere with the accessibility of academic literature.

The Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan in the City of Regina, Sask. A lack of inter- and intra-governmental communication can inhibit free access to vital evidence and data across provincial and municipal governments. (Shutterstock)

As one policy-maker put it: “There’s a lot of academic acumen that’s used and terminology, and it can be overwhelming, and nobody wants to walk out of a room and feel stupid.” As a result, sometimes the best approach is also not well understood by the municipal actors, creating greater need for knowledge translation and accessible research.

3 – Government structures are fragmented

A fragmented governance structure, marked by silo-ing, is another stumbling block. This lack of co-ordination among different branches and divisions within a municipality can result in missed opportunities for collaboration. Differences in the use of terminology can exacerbate the problem, causing confusion and impeding cross-sectoral work.

Conflicts between the objectives of various divisions, such as those between active transportation planners and traffic engineers, underscore the challenges posed by siloed governance. As one policy-maker noted: “There were lots of policies that we seem to put in place that very much favour the movement of vehicles over the movement of pedestrians, cyclists”.

Adding complexity to the mix is the limited legal power of local governments in Canada. Deemed “creatures of the province,” municipalities can only exercise powers delegated to them by provincial governments – meaning municipal powers can be modified or revoked theoretically at will.

The ambiguity surrounding the roles and responsibilities of municipalities versus the provincial government creates tension and incurs costs, as municipalities grapple with disagreements over whose jurisdiction certain issues fall under. Most often, this results in funding decisions that impact healthy urban design.

4 – Political ideologies get in the way

Beyond bureaucratic challenges, differing political ideologies present a formidable barrier.

The integration of health in urban design is rooted in the idea of collectivism, which aims to maximize benefits to the community as a whole. While the current favouring of car-centric roads in most areas reflects a libertarian individualism at odds with collective ideals in urban design.

This imbalance is especially striking when one considers the considerably higher costs to society of driving over walking or biking.

Policy-makers noted that these political ideologies permeate public perception, resulting in resistance to policies perceived as infringing on individual liberties — while policies benefiting only a minority face opposition if they entail personal drawbacks.

We found this issue was exemplified by a fierce resistance to proposals for safer conditions for sex workers by those who wanted them to remain in out-of-sight areas.

Overcoming these barriers

The journey towards creating healthier and more equitable cities is riddled with challenges. From a lack of shared understanding, to inaccessible evidence, fragmented governance and legal limitations of municipalities and differing political ideologies, the barriers are multifaceted. However, understanding these challenges is the first step towards meaningful change.

By fostering collaboration, restructuring governance, empowering local governments, and promoting a collective mindset, we can pave the way for more effective integration of health into urban policies that truly support the well-being of communities at large.

Akram Mahani, Assistant Professor at Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina; Joonsoo Sean Lyeo, Research Associate, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, and Nazeem Muhajarine, Professor, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology and Director, Saskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research Unit, University of Saskatchewan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Building Up has Negative Consequences

Efforts to reduce carbon in Canadian cities is required for reduction in greenhouse gasses (GHGs). The rush to build in Ontario and provide housing should also be done with GHG reduction as a central part of the strategy.   

Commercial and residential buildings are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions across Canada. Building taller to accommodate the need for housing has significant environmental costs. See The Hidden Carbon Footprint of Highrises.

For example, in Calgary, buildings account for about two-thirds of total (GHG) emissions. The best opportunity to do so is in retrofitting existing buildings, and developing new buildings to net-zero standards. 

“We have heard from industry leaders the need to build better for commercial and environmental reasons, and to prepare for the adoption of higher tiers of building code in Alberta,” said Andrea Linsky, director, Emissions-Neutral Buildings, Alberta Ecotrust Foundation.

For more on this story, click here.

New York City Energy Initiative

The New York City Council approved the “City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality” initiative and an ensuing set of zoning changes to support the city’s goal of slashing carbon emissions 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. The initiative does the following:

• Removes zoning impediments to rooftop solar,
• Solar parking canopies over all parking areas,
• Onshore wind, and EV charging and energy storage systems,
• EV charging, and up to 20% of spaces for shared EV charging and car-share use. 
• Encourages the use of bicycles and other micromobility vehicles by creating clear allowances for public bicycle parking.

For more see: NYC overhauls zoning to boost renewables, electrification

 

 

Growing Together and Established Neighbourhoods in Kitchener

 

Southern Ontario Growth

The Ontario government's Growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) identified transit as a major component:

This Plan … sets out a regional vision for transit, and seeks to align transit with growth by directing growth to major transit station areas and other strategic growth areas. … this plan identifies priority transit corridors and the Province expects municipalities to complete detailed planning for major transit station areas… (A Place to Grow, p. 11).

Growing Together

Starting in March 2023 the City of Kitchener began to engage citizens on planning for intensification around transit stations in the downtown core, particularly around Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). The City of Kitchener began the Growing Together process in March/April 2023 to create a planning framework for Kitchener’s MTSAs that will be in place for many years to come. 

Planning staff began the process by holding workshops with the community and other stakeholders.  That led to analysis of the shape of the urban environment and mapping out growth areas within zones within an approximate on kilometre distance from transit stations.  That resulted in mapping and analysis of the ways to build spaces and places in the MTSAs that would provide livable and sustainable forms for residential and other uses.  The process and the documents relating to the planning are available at the Growing Together website. 

Implications for Heritage Conservation and Established Neighbourhoods

 A major question is: how can we create a vibrant urban core and at the same time preserve the low-rise and historic residential neighbourhoods surrounding it?

There were fewer than 20 community responses on the Growing Together website.  It is a great deal of information to digest, but there will be opportunities to address the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee and Council meetings in January/February.

Community Responses

As you can see in the responses from local residents linked below, there are a number of issues when transit stations are also close to the low-rise heritage neighbourhoods that could see tens of thousands of new, expensive condominiums units next to and even within heritage conservation districts. 

The first focusses on the Olde Berlin Town neighbourhood to the East of the transit corridor:

Growing Together Proposal Response, by Hal Jaeger

The second focusses on the Victoria Park Neighbourhood to the West of the transit corridor. 

Responseto the Growing Together Final Draft, by Peggy Nickels, Gail Pool and SheldonAthos