Canada needs to invest in older rental housing, not just build new real estate properties

Grant Alexander Wilson, University of Regina

Across Canada, the demand for rental housing is intensifying. The unprecedented demand for rentals is a result of several factors, including Canada’s population growth, ongoing inflation, constraints on the existing rental stock and obstacles related to the construction of new apartment buildings.

In the middle of 2023, Canada’s population eclipsed 40 million people. Currently, the World Bank estimates the population to be 41.3 million people — with expectations to reach 44.8 million people by 2040.

The biggest driver of such population growth has been described as “migratory increases” or, more simply, immigration. As a result, the demand for housing — specifically rental housing among new Canadians — has increased and is expected to continue to grow.

Housing affordability crisis continues

For many Canadians, homeownership remains out of reach. A report from RBC found that 68 per cent of Canadian households are unable to buy a home due to inflation and wage stagnation.

Together, inflation and wage stagnation have created demand for rental housing. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once described inflation as “taxation without legislation.” Wage stagnation is the phenomenon that occurs when wages lag behind inflation as a result of the two not moving in lockstep.

My recent research shows that indeed, two-thirds of Canadians are in unaffordable housing situations, making the proverbial dream of homeownership unlikely — or at the very least delayed significantly.

Not surprisingly, over the last five years, homeownership rates in Canada have fallen from 68.5 per cent to 66.2 per cent and declines are projected to continue.

This downward trend underscores the growing reliance on rental housing as an alternative — but the current rental market is ill-equipped to handle the demand.

Aging rental stock

The answer to Canada’s housing crisis isn’t as simple as building new rental units. As my previous work has shown, almost half of Canada’s rental properties (1,026,020 units) were built between 1960 and 1979.

Put differently, over 80 per cent of the rental properties in Canada were constructed before the year 2000. These older units remain the backbone of the rental market, but many need to be modernized to remain viable.

While policymakers and the real estate industry have traditionally focused on the construction of new properties, equal attention should be paid to maintaining and preserving older ones as to building new ones.

The dual challenge of constructing new rental properties and preserving existing ones requires the real estate industry and governments to adopt a dual focus on both new developments and upgrading existing rental properties.

Industry’s role in addressing the crisis

To effectively plan and manage the existing and forthcoming challenges in the rental market, both the private sector and governments need to focus on making investments for the long-term.

Playing the long game will result in the greatest value creation for society and businesses. In real estate, this includes consciously and deliberately committing to innovation, such as retrofits and energy efficiency upgrades. Doing so requires the shift of thinking from fiscal years to decades.

For rental property operators, this process starts with investing in existing properties. Financialized operators — those that have sophisticated management, utilize multiple sources of capital and operate in a variety of geographies — are perhaps the best positioned to do this. They have the financial means and scale of ownership to upgrade and modernize existing rentals, ensuring they can meet the rental demands of today and tomorrow.

Financialization is a natural progression for industries as they grow in size and scope. In the context of real estate, financialized operators are large, sophisticated and often securitized, meaning assets are pooled together and turned into financial products for investors.

Beyond their financial and operational abilities, financialized operators have a broader responsibility to a diverse group of stakeholders beyond shareholders. New research has shown that financialized firms have deep environmental social and corporate governance commitments that emphasize other stakeholders such as renters and society at large.

Of course, it’s also important for the industry to invest in new property construction to help combat the intensifying demand for rentals. However, adding to the rental universe is complex, bureaucratic and often doesn’t address affordable housing solutions.

The cost-push inflation — when input costs increase the price of final goods — of materials makes new builds more appealing than affordable housing. Cost-push inflation results in higher prices. Nevertheless, “building anything helps everything” when it comes to rentals.

Government-industry collaboration

The federal government’s $1.5 billion investment to purchase existing apartment buildings to protect and maintain affordable rental units is an important step in the right direction, but it isn’t enough.

Collaboration between governments and the real estate industry is needed to make a deeper impact. While the importance of preserving existing rental properties is well understood, to date there is only one affordability program for aging and existing stock in Canada.

To make a significant impact, more programming and incentives need to be established for operators — particularly those that are financialized and well-equipped to create large-scale change.

The private and public participants need to collaborate to enact and engage in initiatives that reduce costs and prioritize affordable rental housing and the preservation of existing rental stock for Canada’s long-term interests and sustainability.

Grant Alexander Wilson, Associate Professor, Hill and Levene Schools of Business, University of Regina

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

How our public spaces can be safer and more welcoming for children

As urban spaces have developed, our perceptions of what is safe for children have changed. (Google Street View/Anahita Shadkam), CC BY

Anahita Shadkam, Toronto Metropolitan University

A Georgia mother was recently arrested for reckless endangerment after her 10-year-old son was seen walking outside alone. The warrant for her arrest claimed she “willingly and knowingly” endangered her son’s safety.

The boy had walked less than one mile into town to visit the local dollar store. Despite the boy’s evident ability to navigate public spaces independently, a passerby perceived his presence on the street as alarming and called the police.

This incident illustrates the damaging effects of “safetyism,” a societal anxiety that wrongly assumes children should not be out on their own. Such perceptions not only curtail children’s independence but also perpetuate unnecessary interventions that undermine the ability of parents to make decisions for their own family.

A focus on safetyism ignores the absence of child-friendly infrastructure in many of our towns and cities. For example, many suburban neighbourhoods in North America lack sidewalks and other pedestrian infrastructure. In the Georgia incident, the road the boy walked along did not have a sidewalk, meaning he had to walk on the shoulder. This lack of space exacerbates fears of children being in public spaces alone.

How did we reach a point where parents now risk arrest if their children are seen outside alone?

Rise of safetyism

My research focuses on how public spaces can be better designed for children. As societies change, their understanding of childhood changes. The way children were treated 50 years ago differs from what they are experiencing now. Likewise, perceptions of what is safe to do and what is not have also changed over time.

Spontaneous outdoor play is a vital way for children to explore, grow and understand their environment. Yet, urban and suburban design often stifles this natural inclination. These environments usually confine children’s play to parks and playgrounds while leaving broader public spaces off-limits.

Historically, attitudes toward children in public spaces have been shaped by industrialization, rapid urbanization and the growth of suburbs. Early playgrounds emerged during the child-saving movement of the 1980s, aiming to protect children from street dangers.

Spontaneous outdoor play is a vital way for children to explore, grow and understand their environment. (Shutterstock)

However, these heavily supervised, segregated spaces reflected societal biases, dividing children by race, gender and class. Activities prepared boys for leadership, girls for motherhood, and marginalized children for labour.

Architects and planners like Aldo van Eyck have challenged these restrictive notions, advocating for adventure playgrounds and child-friendly urban spaces. Their work emphasizes unstructured play that promotes children’s agency.

Despite these efforts, the rise of safetyism in recent decades has eroded children’s independence. Fears of busy traffic and stranger dangers have led caregivers to limit children’s exposure to the outdoors. This “bubble-wrapped generation,” as education professor Karen Malone describes, experiences childhood within narrowly defined boundaries, chauffeured between organized activities.

This overprotection deprives children of opportunities to develop resilience. Car-dependence also contributes to the very risks it seeks to prevent. For instance, traffic congestion caused by parental drop-offs near schools increases accident risks. Meanwhile, children shielded from navigating public spaces may lack the skills to handle unexpected situations, such as how to seek help when lost.

The Georgia incident starkly illustrates how societal attitudes perpetuate these cycles. The passerby’s decision to involve the police reflects a broader societal discomfort with children’s presence in public spaces. Addressing this issue requires both cultural and infrastructural change.

Improving walkability is a great way to make public spaces more child-friendly. (Shutterstock)

Child-friendly cities

It is time for a new child-saving movement. Cities like Barcelona and Copenhagen offer inspiring examples of child-friendly design that challenge these anxieties. The walkability of these cities contributes to children’s overall skill development.

Integrating playful elements along walkable pathways further advances opportunities to explore and develop a sense of safety and belonging. These opportunities normalize children being in public spaces, countering the harmful perceptions that fuel safetyism.

Implementing traffic-calming measures is another way to foster safer pedestrian movements around the neighbourhood. Among these measures are lowering speed limits around the residential buildings, adding more intersections with signals and mid-block crosswalks especially along the longer and curved streets.

Walkability can also be improved by implementing soft edges along pathways. As opposed to hard physical boundaries such as fences, incorporating soft edges, such as green buffers ensure the safety of children and pedestrians while still enabling them to freely navigate space and engage in playful activities.

Moreover, the creation of intergenerational public spaces must be prioritized over creating age-specific spaces, such as the common fenced playgrounds. First, being in these spaces encourages a sense of shared responsibility, thus improving children’s agency. Second, they foster a sense of community among all, which eventually improves parental perceptions of safety. Third, intergenerational spaces allow caregivers to socialize while children play. This opportunity is an important time-out for the caregivers, while still being able to supervise their kids.

Children’s well-being is a barometer for the health of our societies and cities. To create inclusive, sustainable communities, we must challenge the restrictive boundaries that confine children’s experiences and see their independence as a threat. By designing child-friendly public spaces we can nurture future generations who are better equipped to navigate our world.

Anahita Shadkam, Sessional Instructor, School of Urban and Regional Planning,, Toronto Metropolitan University

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

Note: The main theme of Launch's blog is about development and current ideas about housing.

We need to reflect on what the tendencies to house more people in smaller spaces in densely populated centres may do to the most vulnerable in our midst.

Their risk of homelessness is reflected in their lack of power in a society that pays attention to property and capital. Because property and capital are the principles by which we live, we all bear a responsibility to those most in need. They have little power to effect change.

An enduring idea, sometimes, attributed to Jefferson, Ghandi and Jimmy Carter is: A true measure of the value of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable.

Let us all consider whether the laws of property should be sacrosanct or whether natural justice to life, however it may be lived, takes precedence. ________________________________________________________

Using the notwithstanding clause to evict the homeless shows the limits of municipal politics

Steve Lorteau, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa and Oliver Chan, University of Toronto

In what has become a mainstay in recent Canadian politics, the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is back in the news.

In the last few weeks, several mayors have asked the Ontario government to use the notwithstanding clause to clear homeless encampments.

But invoking the clause would override the homeless population’s rights to “life, liberty, and security” of the person, and potentially other rights.

Proponents of the idea argue the eviction plans would allow residents to regain access to parks currently occupied by the encampments.

The mayors suggest municipal governments, rather than courts, are best equipped to manage homeless encampments. Indeed, they endorse the United State Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing cities to arrest and fine people for sleeping outside when there are no safe alternatives.

Violating Charter rights

The proposed use of the notwithstanding clause to clear the encampments would add unhoused people to a growing list of individuals whose human rights have been recently curbed by the clause, alongside religious minorities, trans youth and public sector employees.

For many Ontario mayors, the notwithstanding clause is necessary to clear the homeless encampments.

But that’s not exactly the case.

As many courts have confirmed, municipalities already have the constitutional right to clear homeless encampments. A 2023 Ontario court decision ruled it was unconstitutional to remove homeless people via anti-camping bylaws if there were not enough available shelter beds to accommodate them after their eviction.

Given these court rulings, invoking the clause amounts to municipalities admitting they want to evict homeless people without offering enough shelter spots.

Admittedly, there may be good general reasons to invoke the notwithstanding clause. It can serve as a check on controversial court decisions and allows elected officials to make the final call on Charter rights.

Yet, besides this broader debate, the recent push to use the notwithstanding clause to evict homeless people hints at some of the structural problems of municipal politics.

The homeless are already excluded

Like in other cases, the use of the notwithstanding clause in terms of clearing homeless encampments apparently seeks to protect the will of the democratic majority. The problem is that homeless people lack a voice in municipal politics.

In Canadian municipal politics, elected officials are especially beholden to homeowners and other property taxpayers. Renters, families seeking homes and especially the homeless, on the other hand, have much less political power.

This power imbalance can create situations in which municipal officials denigrate or stereotype the homeless without facing much electoral consequence.

Take Barrie Mayor Alex Nuttall, one of the leading proponents for invoking the clause. In his words, using the clause can help clear parks of “traumatized adults.”

Similarly, Hamilton Coun. Matt Francis thinks the clause can prioritize the interests of the “everyday taxpayer” over “drug addicts.” Ontario Premier Doug Ford has said the clause can help “move the homeless along.”

The stereotype that people experiencing homelessness are necessarily mentally ill or nuisances needing to be managed is not new. But it is tied to the dangerous idea that homeless people are not a part of “the public” for which politicians hold responsibility.

Municipalities lack resources

Statistics Canada reports that as many as one in 10 Canadians have experienced some form of homelessness. But homelessness is a problem that individual municipalities cannot solve.

Municipal governments have considerably less financial resources than provincial and federal governments. As Jan Liggett, the mayor of Cambridge, Ont., put it, smaller municipalities are “being held ransom by the encampments without being able to provide housing.”

To a major extent, homelessness is a problem created and exacerbated by other political decisions. A key factor is the federal government’s current lack of systematic housing policy that benefited earlier generations.

Homelessness only emerged after severe cuts to federal affordable housing programs in the 1980s and 1990s. Before then, the federal government funded as much as 40 per cent of all new housing construction.

Provincial and municipal governments have also contributed to the mess by maintaining strict zoning rules banning new condos and apartments.

Living in tents is often the only option available for homeless people given the limited number of shelter spaces offered by cities and aid agencies. Regardless of any Charter violations, enforcing anti-camping bylaws will prevent homeless people from having any right to provisional housing on public property whatsoever.

Denying this layer of protection is cold-hearted when funding to help them access adequate housing is not coming fast enough.

Bandaid solution

The decision to override Charter rights to evict the homeless is a superficial, short-term solution that fails to address the deeper issues.

Evicting the homeless does not build any more homes, nor address the root causes of homelessness. Instead, it displaces homeless people to other public spaces or cities.

The one thing eviction does is suppress a clear symbol of a government’s failure to provide adequate housing for its citizenry.

Steve Lorteau, Long-Term Appointment Law Professor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa and Oliver Chan, SJD Candidate, University of Toronto

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

Canada’s housing crisis: Innovative tech must come with policy reform

Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi, University of British Columbia and T.Y. Yang, University of British Columbia

Earlier this year, the Canadian government released a new housing plan aimed at building more homes and addressing housing unaffordability. As part of that plan, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that $600 million in funding will be provided to build homes cheaper and quicker using “innovative technologies.”

The funding is earmarked for building more housing, including prefab and modular homes, by automating processes and using materials like mass timber construction, robotics and 3D printing.

With the possibility of accelerating house delivery and lowering environmental impacts, this investment marks major progress toward addressing Canada’s housing crisis. Modern methods of construction (MMC), like those the government is funding, aim to improve efficiency, sustainability and affordability in the building sector using innovative technologies.

However, fixing Canada’s housing issues requires a multifaceted strategy beyond funding innovative construction technology. A holistic solution must include policy reforms that bridge the gaps between federal and provincial governments, the industry and other stakeholders.

Emerging technologies

Using modern construction methods such as prefabrication and modular construction to build components offsite can result in significant savings in costs and time and markedly reduce carbon emissions. Building materials like mass timber, including cross-laminated timber (CLT), offer a renewable low-carbon substitute for conventional materials, reducing a building’s carbon footprint.

One study from the Netherlands indicates that 3D concrete printing can reduce material waste by up to 90 per cent, representing a significant transformation in sustainable construction practices. In addition, rapid, customized construction made possible by 3D printing can also reduce labour costs.

These modern methods have been successful internationally, producing quality construction that is quickly completed. However, systematic obstacles like governmental inertia and mismatched incentives must also be tackled to unlock their full potential in Canada.

Canada’s housing challenges

One major obstacle to building more homes quicker in Canada is the prolonged regulatory clearance time. Project approvals take up to three times longer than in the United States. In 2020, Canada ranked 37 out of 38 for municipal approval process in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Canada’s housing is among the least affordable in the world. Restrictive zoning policies further intensify housing shortages and hinder the ability to build high-density and mixed-use buildings near transportation hubs.

Another challenge comes from fragmentation in government responsibilities. Inadequate co-operation between different orders of government is causing demand for housing to exceed availability.

Even if Canada’s housing plan supports innovative building techniques, implementation can be challenging due to high upfront costs for materials.

Piecemeal solutions or standalone initiatives cannot address the housing crisis. Canada needs a holistic and multi-stakeholder approach that bridges the gaps between federal, provincial and municipal governments, and includes the active participation of industry stakeholders and local communities.

Proper intergovernmental co-operation is vital. Municipalities must be empowered with the resources and policy tools to fast-track approvals, reduce costs for nonprofit housing developers, and implement progressive policies that allow for more density and inclusionary zoning.

Canada can only build more equitable housing if governments commit to policy reforms that address exclusionary zoning. Furthermore, reducing speculative activity in the housing market is critical. Doing so should include taxing profits from quick property sales, implementing restrictions so housing remains accessible to people searching for homes rather than investors, and increasing investment in social housing.

Provinces also play a critical role in housing through land use planning, building codes and funding affordable housing. However, misaligned provincial and federal priorities often cause delays. Better co-ordination can streamline approval process and accelerate housing delivery.

A federally-led framework

A multifaceted plan that links governments, industries and people under a common goal is crucial. The federal government’s role in health care could provide a template for how Canada can develop better housing policies. Health care, like housing, is a provincial mandate. However, under the Canada Health Act, provinces receive federal funding through transfers. To receive funding, they must comply with principles like universality and accessibility.

Canada should develop a federally-led framework that ties funding to measurable outcomes, implementation of zoning regulations and reductions in approval timelines.

Currently, zoning and development approvals differ significantly across municipalities, creating inefficiencies and delays. A unified approach could harmonize these processes, streamline approvals and incentivize municipalities to adopt progressive policies around inclusionary zoning and higher-density neighbourhoods. Establishing a single housing framework based on values like equity, affordability and accessibility, would promote implementing such policies nationally.

Canada’s current National Housing Council (NHC) serves an important advisory role focused on providing recommendations, however its mandate is limited. Its current scope does not include active co-ordination between federal, provincial and municipal governments or addressing the systemic inefficiencies in zoning, funding and approvals.

To meet the challenges of Canada’s housing crisis, the NHC’s mandate should be expanded to include facilitating active intergovernmental collaboration. With such a mandate, it would be empowered to promote intergovernmental co-operation to harmonize zoning regulations, simplify approvals and lower administrative delays.

Local communities need flexible financing to handle particular housing issues in rural, suburban and metropolitan areas.

Crucially important is scaling up modern methods of construction. To do so, Canada should develop comprehensive guidelines for prefabricated, modular and 3D-printed housing. This must be accompanied by research and development incentives to ensure their swift adoption and effective integration into the construction sector.

This unified approach, underpinned by federal leadership and collaboration can transform housing from a privilege to an accessible right for all Canadians.

Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi, Visiting Senior Researcher, Smart Structures Research Group, University of British Columbia and T.Y. Yang, Professor, Structural & Earthquake Engineering, University of British Columbia

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

Why the ‘housing first’ approach has struggled to fulfil its promise of ending homelessness

Daniel Kudla, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Over the past 15 years, the Housing First approach has gained traction as an evidence-based solution to tackling homelessness in many developed countries, including Canada.

The idea is simple: people experiencing homelessness should be given access to housing without any conditions.

Numerous studies have shown its effectiveness in reducing homelessness and providing long-term housing stability, especially for people experiencing chronic homelessness. Yet, many countries still see rising levels of homelessness despite claiming to implement the approach.

Data from Statistics Canada indicates that between 2018 and 2022 homelessness across the country increased by around 20 per cent. The biggest contributor to that rise was unsheltered homelessness — people sleeping in streets, vehicles or encampments. In the United States, the number of people experiencing homelessness jumped 12 per cent between 2022 and 2023.

This raises important questions about the limitations of this globally popular homelessness approach.

A video explainer on Housing First.

What is Housing First?

The idea emerged from the Pathways to Housing program founded in New York City in 1992. The program provided immediate housing through rental subsidies along with voluntary support services.

It emerged as an alternative to Treatment First approaches which require people to abstain from drugs and alcohol and adhere to treatment programs to become eligible for independent housing. That approach has generally failed because it is extremely difficult for people to get treatment and recover from addiction if they don’t have stable housing. Many people also refuse to participate in treatment programs which make them ineligible for obtaining housing.

Housing First is seen as a better alternative because having a safe and permanent home provides a necessary foundation for addressing other needs. Rather than compelling people to treatment services, Housing First provides housing as quickly as possible and the choice to avail of supportive services.

Housing First has significantly evolved throughout the decades. It has received extensive evidence-based program evaluations, including the large $110 million cross-national Health Canada research project “At Home/Chez Soi.”

The current Canadian federal government homelessness strategy claims to follow the principles of Housing First. Yet, despite its apparent success and global appeal, Housing First has not solved our national homelessness crisis.

In our recently published paper, sociology professor Andrew Clarke and I identified three key reasons the approach has struggled to fulfil its promise of ending homelessness.

Elevating Housing First beyond a ‘program’

Housing First is popular because it is seen as a ready-made program that can be adopted by non-profits or government agencies. But treating it merely as a program overlooks whether there are the resources and political will to achieve its core principle — providing unhoused people with housing.

In both Canada and the U.S., Housing First programs often rely on the private rental market. This creates challenges, as the rental subsidies provided typically do not cover high rent costs, and affordable housing is limited and often in poor condition.

For Housing First to truly succeed, governments must recognize housing as a human right. It must be accompanied by investments in safe and stable affordable housing. It also requires tackling other systemic issues such as low social assistance rates, unlivable minimum wages and inadequate mental health resources.

Housing for all

Housing First is often promoted as a cost-effective solution by targeting chronically homeless individuals who rely heavily on public services. A survey called the Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool is frequently used to identify and prioritize people for Housing First services. This survey asks people personal questions about their traumas, coping methods, fears, health issues, substance use and criminal justice involvement.

Critics argue that this approach ranks people experiencing homelessness by their perceived cost to taxpayer dollars. This is evaluated by how often they have interacted with public services such as homeless shelters, hospitals, paramedics as well as the police.

This raises ethical concerns because access to housing is conditional on only those who incur the most cost to public dollars rather than housing being recognized as a basic human right for all.

Removing disciplinary measures

Although Housing First is supposed to give people a choice over the housing and support they receive, critics argue that it can be coercive. Many people living in homeless encampments face pressure to enroll in Housing First programs, sometimes under police threats of eviction, arrest and dispossession of property.

Housing First assumes that everyone will prefer stable housing over life on the streets. However, this neglects the sense of community and security people might have developed after living with other unhoused people. Moving into housing could mean separation from one’s community and being isolated in a new living environment. For Housing First to be successful, it should resemble the sense of community and strong social relations that people forge living with others on the streets.

For those that do move into housing, they work with caseworkers who make routine home visits. In an effort to reduce potential tensions with landlords, caseworkers mentor tenants on how to take care of their new home. When issues arise such as property damage or noise complaints, caseworkers use the threat of eviction as a tactic to get tenants to comply with the rental agreement.

Since many Housing First programs operate within a private rental market, the key role of caseworkers is to ensure landlord satisfaction to retain them as housing providers. Providing genuine support to tenants becomes secondary. Governments must provide non-market housing options for Housing First to reach its potential.

Finland’s experience with Housing First

Despite shortcomings, the principle behind Housing First (housing as a human right) remains vital. This principle can still be realized through thoughtful reforms. Studies on Housing First provide a useful framework for addressing the systemic barriers that hinder its success.

Finland’s experience offers valuable lessons. Rather than treating Housing First as a standalone program, Finland has focused on ensuring a robust supply of secure, affordable housing. The government converted temporary shelters into long-term homes and made significant investments in social housing. In Helsinki, this led to a remarkable 72 per cent reduction in people sleeping rough and in temporary accommodation.

Canada can draw from Finland’s example. Broadening the target population for Housing First beyond those chronically homeless and investing in social and supportive housing, rather than merely subsidizing market rents, is essential.

Furthermore, coercive tactics should not be used to compel people to live independently. Instead, service providers should meaningfully interact with the unhoused to create housing that suits their needs.

While Finland’s model is not without flaws, it demonstrates that tackling systemic issues is crucial for transforming homelessness policy. Housing First can still achieve its promise, but it requires a deeper commitment to social change.

Daniel Kudla, Assistant Professor, Sociology, Memorial University of Newfoundland

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

Want to build healthier cities? Make room for bird and tree diversity

Rachel Buxton, Carleton University; Emma J. Hudgins, The University of Melbourne, and Stephanie Prince Ware, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

More than five million Canadians — approximately one in eight of us — are living with a mood, anxiety or substance use disorder. The prevalence of mental disorders is on the rise, with a third of those with a disorder reporting unmet or partially met needs for mental health-care services.

The stresses of the city, where more than 70 per cent of Canadians now live, can increase the risk of poor mental health even further.

When most people think about caring for their mental health, they may think about getting more exercise, getting more sleep and making sure they’re eating healthy. Increasingly, research is showing that spending time in nature surrounded by plants and wildlife can also contribute to preventing and treating mental illness.

Our research focuses on the importance of birds and trees in urban neighbourhoods in promoting mental well-being. In our study, we combined more than a decade of health and ecological data across 36 Canadian cities and found a positive association between greater bird and tree diversity and self-rated mental health.

The well-being benefits of healthy ecosystems will probably not come as a great surprise to urban dwellers who relish days out in the park or hiking in a nearby nature reserve. Still, the findings of our study speak to the potential of a nature-based urbanism that promotes the health of its citizens.

Birds, trees and human connection

Across cultures and societies, people have strong connections with birds. The beauty of their bright song and colour have inspired art, music and poetry. Their contemporary cultural relevance has even earned them an affectionate, absurdist internet nickname: “birbs”.

There’s something magical about catching a glimpse of a bird and hearing birdsong. For many urbanites, birds are our daily connection to wildlife and a gateway to nature. In fact, even if we don’t realize it, humans and birds are intertwined. Birds provide us with many essential services — controlling insects, dispersing seeds and pollinating our crops.

People have similarly intimate connections with trees. The terms tree of life, family trees, even tree-hugger all demonstrate the central cultural importance trees have in many communities around the world. In cities, trees are a staple of efforts to bring beauty and tranquility.

When the Australian city of Melbourne gave urban trees email addresses for people to report problems, residents responded by writing thousands of love letters to their favourite trees. Forest bathing, a practice of being calm and quiet among trees, is a growing wellness trend.

Birds and trees as promoters of urban wellness

Contact with nature and greenspace have a suite of mental health benefits.

Natural spaces reduce stress and offer places for recreation and relaxation for urban dwellers, but natural diversity is key. A growing amount of research shows that the extent of these benefits may be related to the diversity of different natural features.

For example, in the United States, higher bird diversity is associated with lower hospitalizations for mood and anxiety disorders and longer life expectancy. In a European study, researchers found that bird diversity was as important for life satisfaction as income.

People’s connection to a greater diversity of birds and trees could be because we evolved to recognize that the presence of more species indicates a safer environment — one with more things to eat and more shelter. Biodiverse environments are also less work for the brain to interpret, allowing restoration of cognitive resources.

To explore the relationship between biodiversity and mental health in urban Canada, we brought together unique datasets. First, we collected bird data sourced from community scientists, where people logged their bird sightings on an app. We then compared this data with tree diversity data from national forest inventories.

Finally, we compared both of these data sets to a long-standing health survey that has interviewed approximately 65,000 Canadians each year for over two decades.

We found that living in a neighbourhood with higher than average bird diversity increased reporting of good mental health by about seven per cent. While living in a neighbourhood with higher than average tree diversity increased good mental health by about five per cent.

Importance of urban birds and trees

The results of our study, and those of others, show a connection between urban bird and tree diversity, healthy ecosystems and people’s mental well-being. This underscores the importance of urban biodiversity conservation as part of healthy living promotion.

Protecting wild areas in parks, planting pollinator gardens and reducing pesticide use could all be key strategies to protect urban wildlife and promote people’s well-being. Urban planners should take note.

We’re at a critical juncture: just as we are beginning to understand the well-being benefits of birds and trees, we’re losing species at a faster rate than ever before. It’s estimated that there are three billion fewer birds in North America compared to the 1970s and invasive pests will kill 1.4 million street trees over the next 30 years.

By promoting urban biodiversity, we can ensure a sustainable and healthy future for all species, including ourselves.

Rachel Buxton, Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Carleton University; Emma J. Hudgins, Lecturer, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne, and Stephanie Prince Ware, Senior Research Scientist, Public Health Agency of Canada and Adjunct professor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

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

Choices made nearly a century ago explain today’s housing crisis

The private sector’s stranglehold on the construction industry and social standards are having a major impact on access to housing. (Shutterstock)

Raphaël Fischler, Université de Montréal

Housing is an important political issue. Politicians and experts now talk about it as a major crisis that could threaten our economic and social well-being. But this is nothing new. Another housing crisis raged at the beginning of the 20th century.

Back then, it concerned working-class slums. Today, it’s much more widespread: many households are struggling to acquire property, while others are spending too much of their income on rent, and still others are living in substandard housing, or simply have nowhere to live.

As a specialist in the history of urban planning and a full professor at the Université de Montréal’s School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, I hear arguments today that are similar to those made 120 years ago, although there are new elements now.

Residential slum photographed in 1930s Toronto. (City of Toronto Archives)

The promise of decent housing

As Roy Lubove has shown in The Progressives and the Slums, during the crusade against slums between 1890 and 1920, reformers on the right and on the left agreed in denouncing the greed of landlords who exploited vulnerable populations. Both called for measures that would give workers access to decent housing.

They also agreed that quality standards should apply to construction to ensure the health and safety of occupants, requirements such as minimum room volumes, minimum window sizes and minimum sanitary facilities. The question was, how to increase the quality of housing without making it too expensive for the average worker?

To this question, right-wing reformers replied that quality standards had to be increased gradually in function of the economic development and wage increases that capitalism was making possible. In response to socialism, they promised a constantly rising standard of living that would include steady improvements in housing quality standards.

Left-wing reformers wanted to ensure that housing production was not left up to market forces alone, and that the public and community (union) sectors would play an active role in ensuring this.

Domination of the private sector

In Canada and the United States, unlike in some European countries, the right won a crushing victory in this political battle. Although the state did build social housing at one time, and still offers subsidies to community groups, the private sector produces the bulk (no less than 97 per cent) of housing, sometimes with subsidies to builders and households.

As hoped at the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a consistent improvement in the quality of housing. The average size of new homes has grown steadily, although it now seems to have reached a plateau. Requirements in terms of comfort, safety and health have continued to rise. In addition to these standards, there are more and more requirements concerning the environmental and social impacts of new projects.

The conclusion is clear: given the choice between quality and affordability, we have made a societal choice in favour of quality. It’s a respectable choice, especially in terms of sustainability, but one that has a real impact on access to housing.

In response to the current crisis, the private sector needs to be encouraged to produce more affordable housing. Yet, at the same time, we need to reduce the dominance of the private sector. The profit-maximizing logic that drives it leads it to produce expensive housing and to contribute to the production of affordable housing only indirectly, through an inefficient “filtering” mechanism or through modest contributions imposed by certain municipalities.

However, producing affordable housing in the current circumstances is not an easy task. L'UTILE, an non-profit based in Montréal, offers affordable student housing by foregoing profits, focusing on density (high footprint and land-use coefficients), reducing the size of rooms and common spaces to a minimum, using prefabrication, and benefiting from substantial public subsidies (over $100,000 per three- or four-bedroom unit).

None of these strategies will be enough without government support. Given the very high cost of construction, even the middle class today needs support from the state.

Standards out of reach

In The City Below the Hill, published in 1897, reformer Herbert Ames denounced the deplorable living conditions of workers in Montréal and advocated for government involvement in housing. He hoped that, in time, every household would have a decent home, which he defined as:

… the ideal home is one where the front door is used by but one family, where the house faces upon a through street, where water-closet accommodation is provided, and where there are as many rooms allotted to a family as there are persons composing.

This ideal, updated for today’s standards, is still not within everyone’s reach. For households on the lowest incomes, it is becoming an increasingly remote possibility.

At the beginning of the 20th century, one could reasonably hope that capitalism would raise living standards and that the quality of housing would improve from one generation to the next. We now have to be realistic and accept the fact that the private market, alone, cannot meet the needs of part of the population. Of course, we need to increase housing production to better meet demand, but we also need to increase state aid, promote technological innovation to lower the cost of construction, and critically examine the accumulation of standards that apply to residential development.

Raphaël Fischler, Professeur titulaire à l'École d'urbanisme et d'architecture de paysage, Université de Montréal

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

What’s behind Canada’s housing crisis? Experts break down the different factors at play

Yushu Zhu, Simon Fraser University and Hanan Ali, Simon Fraser University

Canadians are in the grip of a deepening housing crisis, yet not everyone agrees on what exactly the housing crisis is. The common narrative focuses on an affordability crisis for homeownership, attributed to either excessive demand from immigrants and foreign buyers or a lack of supply.

Canada’s housing market is among the most unaffordable, with one of the highest house-price-to-income ratios among OECD member states. Housing prices soared over 355 per cent between 2000 and 2021, while median nominal income increased by only 113 per cent.

But today’s housing crisis extends beyond unaffordable homes and supply shortages. It’s rooted in a deeply financialized housing system that idealizes homeownership and treats homes as financial assets instead of social goods.

What is the housing crisis?

The housing crisis is not new in Canada. In his book on the evolution of Canadian housing policy, historian John Bacher describes that, in the early 1900s, Canadians were “faced with the choice of accepting shelter that was overcrowded, poorly serviced, or below minimal building-code and sanitary standards.”

A century later, the housing crisis has not only persisted but worsened. The convergence of diverse housing vulnerabilities have affected people from all walks of life.

Renters, for instance, are facing rent increases double that of inflation, alongside evictions and displacement.

Homelessness is on the rise, disproportionately affecting Indigenous and Black people, gender minorities, and persons with disabilities.

Homeownership is increasingly precarious. Over one-third of Canadian households own a home with a mortgage, and of those, two-thirds have trouble meeting their financial commitments.

As a result, many Canadians have had to sacrifice privacy, comfort, stability, and location, leading to hidden housing vulnerabilities like undesirable living conditions, overcrowding and dissatisfaction.

Many young adults are now delaying homeownership, staying in their parents’ homes longer, postponing starting families or relying on parental financial support to buy homes, which can widen intergenerational wealth gaps.

How did the housing crisis happen?

These issues stem from policies in the 1980s to restructure the housing system, cultivating a culture of homeownership and market supremacy.

Canada had a strong housing welfare system in the 1960s and 1970s, but this changed in 1993 when the federal government stopped funding social housing programs. It shifted toward a commodified system that emphasized individual responsibility.

This shift was driven by two neoliberal beliefs. The first is that the private market is the most efficient way to provide housing, with the idea that older homes will become affordable as newer ones are built in a process called filtering.

In reality, older houses can become more expensive because of renovation costs and speculation, and affordability is tied more to land than property values.

The second belief is that homeownership promotes autonomy and reduces reliance on governments by building property assets, although the reality defies this belief.

Consequently, public divestment has created a siloed and marginalized social housing sector that now makes up about four per cent of the total housing stock. It primarily serves as a last resort for the “deserving poor,” like those with complex housing needs. The concentration of poverty and vulnerability in this sector further reinforces the stigmas around it.

Housing financialization has intensified since 1999 when the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) shifted from building homes to insuring mortgages. CMHC’s mortgage securitization programs expanded access to mortgages, fuelling demand and real estate speculation, turning housing into a vehicle for asset-building and capital accumulation. Federal subsidies further encouraged homeownership.

Homeownership rates rose from 63 per cent to 69 per cent between 1991 and 2011. Meanwhile, median house prices increased by 142 per cent, while incomes grew by only seven per cent. Household debt soared, with debt-to-income ratios rising from 109 per cent to 173 per cent between 2002 and 2017. Homeownership rates have since started to fall.

Why does the current system fail?

Neoliberal housing policies foster landlordism. Across British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, one in five residential properties are used as investments rather than primary residences. This financialization of rental housing, including short-term rentals, has strained long-term rental markets.

Economic pressures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, rising construction costs, an aging workforce and population growth have worsened housing affordability.

Yet, the housing crisis is an inherent feature of a neoliberal housing system that created a tenure hierarchy, with homeownership at the top and non-market rental at the bottom. Everyone is expected to participate in the private market to climb the housing ladder from renting to owning.

Such a system will always fail to produce equitable housing outcomes. The market is most likely to respond to the housing needs of those with strong purchasing power, leaving behind low and moderate income families whose housing needs cannot generate effective market demand. The consequence is growing housing inequality, with many low-income families trapped in precarious living conditions.

Politically, the expansion of homeownership incentivizes electoral support for policies that prioritize homeownership and appeal to “homevoters.” Homeownership ideology is therefore reinforced and housing vulnerability becomes effectively “deadlocked.”

Current housing policies

Recent housing policy efforts have shown a renewed alignment between different levels of government in tackling housing challenges.

The federal government’s 2017 National Housing Strategy (NHS) focused on increasing rental supply, providing rent assistance and reducing homelessness.

The 2019 National Housing Strategy Act established access to adequate housing as a human right. The 2024 Canada Housing Plan aims to create 3.87 million homes by 2031 while recognizing tenants’ rights for the first time and protecting tenants’ tenure security.

Provincial governments followed suit. B.C.’s 2018 Homes for B.C. plan, for example, included measures to curtail non-resident investor speculation and boost market and non-market housing supply. It also established legislation to curb short-term rentals, end single-family zoning and increase density near public transit.

Municipalities implemented measures to cut red tape, streamline housing development, incentivize densification (like Montréal’s inclusionary zoning by-law) and standardize housing design and construction.

More action is needed

These policies signal a positive shift toward acknowledging housing as a human right and recognizing tenants’ rights. Renewed funding has supported rental housing construction, including co-op housing. Programs for community housing and homelessness are also pivotal for sustaining the aging social housing stock and supporting those in greatest need.

However, most policy approaches remain market-driven, prioritizing private developers and market supply. Of the NHS’s $115 billion budget over 10 years, 57 per cent is loans and under 40 per cent is budgetary expenditures with a small proportion to support community housing.

The biggest finance program, the Apartment Construction Loan Program, has mainly benefited private developers building above-market-rate housing.

Mortgage securitization programs remain central to the federal government’s financing of homeownership. The 2024 Housing Plan continues to expand mortgage access.

Market supply may help moderate affordability, but the impact will be limited without policies to grow the community housing sector. It also leaves deeper housing vulnerabilities unaddressed.

Homelessness has increased since the NHS launch. An estimated seven-fold funding increase is needed to halve chronic homelessness. Advocates have been calling for at least a doubling of the community housing sector, but a significant shortage persists.

Breaking the housing crisis deadlock requires breaking the hierarchy between homeownership and rentership, and between the market and non-market rental sectors. De-commodifying and de-financializing housing is key. This means expanding community housing, prioritizing community-based solutions and ensuring long-term security for all.

Yushu Zhu, Assistant Professor, Urban Studies and Public Policy, Simon Fraser University and Hanan Ali, Assistant Researcher, Housing Policy, Urban Studies Program, Simon Fraser University

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

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.