Launch stands for Land Use Community Neightbourhood Hub. The purpose is to provide residents in Kitchener with information and links to issues of development that affect them.
The Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) in partnership with the Climate Risk Institute (CRI) and the Ontario Resource Centre for Climate Adaptation (ORCCA) have announced the publication of a Climate Change Adaptation Practice Guide.
The guide aims to recognize the important role Registered Professional Planners (RPPs) play in helping Ontario adapt to climate change as well as support individual communities in building resilience against the climate threats they may face.
To read the guide (68 pages) click here
Large cities such at the Waterloo region have instituted a programme of High Performance Standards that are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The plan is to engage with industry and the community to ensure a consistent set of standards that address climiate change. To read more, click here.
Wednesday, February 19, 2025
Net-zero homes are touted as a solution for climate change, but they remain out of reach for most
Net-zero homes use natural energy sources and are designed to use less energy and, as such, are considered important in the fight against climate change. But for the average Canadian, they’re still out of reach.
Net-zero homes are important for tackling climate change. This includes both net-zero energy (NZE) homes, which produce as much energy as they use each year, and net-zero carbon (NZC) homes, which don’t release any carbon dioxide.
Released in the summer of 2024, the Canada Green Buildings Strategy outlines a bold vision to transform the country’s building sector, aiming for net-zero emissions and enhanced resilience by 2050. This is a bold step forward, but transforming the sector will require sustained collaboration across all levels of government, industry and communities.
CTV News covers the federal government’s Green Buildings Strategy.
In 2024, the Canadian federal government announced a $600 million package of loans and funding to help make it easier and cheaper to build homes. This funding will support innovative technologies like pre-fabricated and modular construction, robotics, 3D-printing and mass timber to build homes faster and cheaper.
The Net Zero Council of the Canadian Home Builders’ Association has also been important in enhancing standards and practices and promoting novel approaches that cut costs while still being environmentally friendly. In doing so, CHBA drives the adoption of cheaper, environmentally friendly technologies and processes, enhancing industry standards and practices across Canada.
While CHBA collaborates with government agencies, such as Natural Resources Canada to promote innovation and elevate industry standards. Government programs typically provide funding, technical support and policy guidance, whereas CHBA focuses on training, best practices and market development for its members.
To make net-zero homes accessible to all Canadians, a multi-faceted approach is required.
Increased subsidies and incentives and expanding financial support for both builders and buyers can lower barriers to entry. The government of Canada’s 2030 Emission Reduction Plan includes $9.1 billion in new investments over the next eight years — adding to the $17 billion announced in 2021 — to support decarbonization efforts.
Enhancing public awareness and developing educational campaigns highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of net-zero homes are both essential approaches to raising awareness and support.
Policy reform can accelerate adoption of net-zero homes. Examples include harmonizing building codes and introducing mandatory energy efficiency standards to accelerate adoption.
The Sustainable Finance Action Council recommends steps to mobilize private capital to support decarbonization and climate resilience in the Canadian economy, including in the housing sector.
Solar panels the roofs of apartment buildings in Munich, Germany.(Shutterstock)
Successful international models
Several countries have demonstrated how net-zero homes can become a reality through innovative policies, community-driven approaches and public-private partnerships:
BedZED in the United Kingdom is the country’s first eco-village project. It uses community-focused design and renewables to significantly cut carbon footprints.
The Passive House standard is a German housing policy that sets a global benchmark for ultra-low energy consumption, emphasizing airtight construction and heat recovery.
California’s ambitious Zero Net Energy policies help reduce overall carbon footprints by driving cutting-edge home construction practices.
The Netherlands is a leader in innovative, large-scale retrofitting for net-zero housing, most notably through the Energiesprong program.
These international models highlight that success lies in integrating strong policy frameworks, advanced technology and collaborative practices. They demonstrate that with the right mix of government support, industry innovation and residents embracing green choices, net-zero living can become more widespread.
Housing is an important part of how to address climate change. As Canada pushes to make net-zero homes more affordable, each step forward strengthens communities, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps homeowners save money.
The City of Missisauga has a four-year action plan to get more housing built and make it more affordable.
Read the comprehensive report that will guide Mississauga’s housing efforts going forward here.
Reform development charges, taxes and fees to help lower housing costs
In Canada, 95% of new homes are built by the private sector. The task force recommends 14 actions to help balance demand and incentivize more affordable housing development.
Update building and design standards to boost supply and make building more affordable
Guidelines and standards should help good city-building, not hinder it. The task force recommends 7 actions that will help create efficiencies across the industry to increase supply.
Transform zoning to unlock more housing
Zoning reform provides certainty for developers and can help streamline the development application process. The task force recommends 5 actions that help transform Mississauga into a dynamic urban city.
Create sustainable program and funding for affordable housing to mobilize industry
Mobilizing the private sector can help meet the demand for affordable housing. The task force recommends 4 actions to help develop a sustainable, long-term funding program for affordable housing.
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Why improving social housing could be remarkably simple (and affordable)
Tragedies in social housing, such as the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 and the death of toddler Awaab Ishak due to damp living conditions in 2020, remain shocking. As a coroner commented at the time, “How in the UK in 2020 does a two-year-old child die as a result of exposure to mould?”
Since then developments like Awaab’s Law have increased landlords’ accountability for delivering decent homes. However, improvements to housing stock may appear to be happening at a snail’s pace, as shown by the tower block fire in Dagenham, east London, in 2024.
But capturing data and feedback from social housing tenants is notoriously tricky. This can be due to the range of ways tenants prefer to communicate (from digital tools to landlines, physical post and in-person) as well as limited willingness to engage with authorities. This means that tenant perspectives are frequently unheard.
As customers, if we purchase a product and something is wrong, we know we have consumer rights and can have the complaint acted upon. The social housing sector is different. It has become increasingly stigmatised, resulting in areas of social housing being associated with higher crime rates, social deprivation and inequality, mental health issues and addiction.
Consequently, social housing tenants include vulnerable people on low incomes, who often experience digital inequality and less agency and control over their home environment. They rely on social housing stock availability and on landlords for the state of repair of their home.
While tenants can of course raise concerns over quality and maintenance with their housing provider, their voice has frequently gone unheard, as exemplified by the case of Awaab’s parents. But it shouldn’t be difficult to change this.
My colleague and I share a longstanding interest in social housing service performance. We wanted to understand how technology might support improvement in the sector and help guard against issues like the ones mentioned above.
Social housing is not typically associated with high technology, due to the financial constraints typical across the public sector, combined with a sometimes limited appetite for innovation. Yet the potential opportunities to use tech to improve the tenant experience appeared bountiful. Or at least, that’s what we thought.
Our research was designed to explore how tenants’ future experiences of social housing might be improved through the application of technology. We collected data from 35 experts from global tech organisations, including Amazon Web Services, as well as organisations dealing with social housing policy, senior social housing leaders (chief executives, directors or heads of service), frontline staff and tenants.
While we weren’t surprised by the broad improvement areas identified (around property standards, service delivery, integration of technology and empowerment), we did not expect that so many of the issues could be solved with low-tech (or even no-tech) solutions.
We used the Delphi method, which is a way of getting an overall picture of the future by aggregating responses from experts in different disciplines. We asked how each expert thought the “tenant of the future” might look.
In our findings, it emerged that they believed customers (that is to say, tenants) will have higher expectations in a number of areas associated with their housing.
1. Property standards
This emphasised the need for decent homes. This means social housing organisations and landlords being more aware of the quality of their properties and, in particular, paying greater attention to insulation to help with the cost of living.
2. Human-centred services
This would emphasise the importance of a contact model where tenants can raise concerns or complaints face to face through a designated housing officer. This theme also suggested that re-evaluating the core purpose of social housing would be helpful, including the role of and contribution to the wider community.
For example, respondents suggested increasing levels of community engagement by involving tenants in decision making. This would not only increase their agency, but also help to reduce stigma and stereotypes around social housing. This is an area where low or no-tech solutions are possible. One respondent said: “Whilst digital can yield massive improvements to service delivery, it should not be a replacement for … conversations with tenants, including face-to-face engagement.”
3. Making use of technology
While we expected demands in this area to be high, suggestions were in fact surprisingly modest. Respondents suggested things like online forms or live chat functions, and the use of smart devices to reduce energy consumption, detect mould or monitor things like boilers, for example.
4. Tenant empowerment
Collecting feedback allows landlords to understand tenants’ needs and work with them to develop a more customer-centred approach to social housing.
Damp and mouldy property is one of the biggest issues in social housing.epiximages/Shutterstock
Realisation of these humble findings doesn’t feel unattainable or spectacularly unaffordable, yet history has shown us that the sector has struggled to overcome stigma and prejudice to effect change.
So what could be done? The government is moving to build new homes at speed. While this will improve availability of housing stock nationally, it won’t address issues around the quality of existing stock without substantial investment. Greater transparency around the quality of social housing is vital, alongside more robust reporting and repair processes.
While we don’t have all the answers, the importance of direct personal contact that we uncovered in our research actually feels quite heartwarming, giving the sense that tenants’ views and concerns actually matter.
Ensuring personal contact points between tenant and social housing provider should be a straightforward and affordable allocation of existing resources. This isn’t too much to ask and is definitely not rocket science.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
